I've read the sticky and a few other posts and I understand the principles of the rule and the reasons that it's there.
What I don't understand is why the 'location' considered is geographical and not client based.
If I, and another contractor work for Bank A for 22 months. We can each legitimately claim travel expenses.
Our contracts end and we both then get entirely independent contracts with new clients, for the next 12 months, nothing whatsoever to do with Bank A. Mine is 30 miles away in another town and his is 200 yards away from Bank A, in a financial district that has all of these banks in the same place (fairly common).
This means that I can continue to claim travel expenses as before, but he can't even though we've both done exactly the same thing and are in exactly the same situation.
I think I've understood this correctly, but I don't understand the point of it. What is it achieving?
What I don't understand is why the 'location' considered is geographical and not client based.
If I, and another contractor work for Bank A for 22 months. We can each legitimately claim travel expenses.
Our contracts end and we both then get entirely independent contracts with new clients, for the next 12 months, nothing whatsoever to do with Bank A. Mine is 30 miles away in another town and his is 200 yards away from Bank A, in a financial district that has all of these banks in the same place (fairly common).
This means that I can continue to claim travel expenses as before, but he can't even though we've both done exactly the same thing and are in exactly the same situation.
I think I've understood this correctly, but I don't understand the point of it. What is it achieving?
Comment