Expenses - bit dodgy this one but its not me

[psychocandy]

+1 to this.

If you ever get in a situation where the tax man decides he is going to prove it you are pretty much buggered. The vaseline and gloves will be coming out. I wonder how many other things he will find. Horrible situation to be avoided at all costs, particularly for so little.

If PC knew it would be dodgy he wouldn't be arguing it...

Nah Im not arguing it - I dont do this. I was surprised when I thought about it how easy it was to do thats all.

[northernladuk]

If your car needs an MOT you need to look at your day rate!

[The Spartan]

If your car needs an MOT you need to look at your day rate!

Yeah because it's not a requirement of law to have one is it?

[oliverson]

Yeah because it's not a requirement of law to have one is it?

Jesus do I have to spell everything out?

Your car only needs an MOT if it's over 3 years old. Doh!!!!

[The Spartan]

Jesus do I have to spell everything out?

Your car only needs an MOT if it's over 3 years old. Doh!!!!

Yep that's right so why would anyone buy a new(ish) car and take the train lol, have you ever heard of depreciation?

[bigmaz]

I just think its amazing that people are so casual about commiting fraud like this, just because they can, and very unlikely to get caught. Its a crime at the end of the day, and you are no better than any other criminal, especially if it doesnt bother your conscience to commit a crime. I bet these same people moan about the politicians with the expenses scandal.

[BolshieBastard]

Lets just start off with saying, Im all up for things like JSA but this seems a bit much even for me.
It is not me (before anyone starts) - its someone I know but it did get me thinking.

Anyway, A has a contract 50 miles away but gets the train which costs £20.
But instead of claiming for the train, he claims 100 miles x 45p = £45 and obviously pays for the train himself. (He also claims for bridge toll that he doesn't use).

So, £25 per day that hes now not paying tax on.20 days per month = £500 = £100 saved in CT.

Like I said, dodgy but his rationale - how on earth are HMRC going to find out and I think he has a point....
Fair enough claiming for journeys that you dont make is a bit dodgy but surely he can prove hes got a contract at location X and prove he was in that day if it ever comes down to it. How are they ever going to know his mode of transport? Its not as if someone is going to check the mileage on his and/or wait outside his house to see if he gets into his car or not, is it?

Of course, only works for journeys where train journey is cheap like this. Get the feeling this won't always be the case but its an interesting idea. (but then again I guess so is bank robbery!)

How are HMRC going to find out? They wont unless they do an investigation and even then, if he covers his tracks, I dont see how they can find out.

He's supposed to keep a mileage record so this should be recorded somewhere. If he isnt doing this, it would raise concerns with HMRC as there's no 'evidence' to support the mileage claim.

He can only claim 45ppm for the first 10,000 miles for a vehicle of 2 litres or more. If he hasnt owned a 2 L car, there's another flag.

If he has a 2L car, how will the mileage claimed compared to the odometer correspond? Another flag. Even if he claims he had a 2L car but sold it, can he show evidence of the sale? Possibly another flag.

All in all, if people are doing a dodge such as this, they are probably taking other, ahem, liberties with the expenses which may come back to bite them in an investigation.

But, like that paconsulting guy who wanted confirmation it was ok to take the missus away, slip her a length (or two!) and claim it as a business meeting, I guess some people sail close to the wind.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The journey is legit. I still have to get from my home to my temporary place of work.

I don't think this is really a biggy and no-one can really get all moral about this when the whole idea of claiming for travel to a temporary work place is effectively a 'loophole' that we all exploit.

If anyone's really that bothered about kharma, then perhaps they shouldn't be claiming travel at all.

How is it a 'loophole'??? The rules surrounding travel and subsistence expenses are clear and a temporary workplace is defined by HMRC who, incidentally, read this forum and will probably be quite interested in some of the comments made, especially as they are currently conducting a review into travel and subsistence expenses.

[JRCT]

How is it a 'loophole'??? The rules surrounding travel and subsistence expenses are clear and a temporary workplace is defined by HMRC who, incidentally, read this forum and will probably be quite interested in some of the comments made, especially as they are currently conducting a review into travel and subsistence expenses.

It's a loophole in the respect that it wasn't put in place for contractors to use. It was put in place for someone whose permanent place of work moved town, giving them the opportunity to try commuting to the new 'temporary' place of work for a short period before committing themselves one way or the other.

I'm merely pointing out that the way that we all dance around the 24 month rule in order to continue claiming is effectively taking advantage of something that wasn't designed for this purpose.

[Pondlife]

I wonder how many hoops HMRC would have to jump through before they could get a website owner to hand over the email addresses and IPs for posters blatantly admitting to tax fraud?