Lunch expenses

[malvolio]

No they don't, though I have had this argument a number of times here, with other contractors and accountants. Check Example 2 here for a start:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim31816

Michael is employed as a travelling salesman visiting customers across the UK throughout the day. He travels to his first customer direct from home and travels home directly from his last customer of the day. Each day he purchases and eats lunch whilst travelling between customers.

Michael is travelling in the performance of his duties therefore the costs of his travel both to and from home and between customers together with the cost of his meals incurred whilst en route are allowable under section 337.

But he's travelling around and therefore hasn't got a base to allow him to prepare lunch. that's different from driving to an office and sitting there all day then driving home again

HTH. BIDI..

[vwdan]

But he's travelling around and therefore hasn't got a base to allow him to prepare lunch. that's different from driving to an office and sitting there all day then driving home again

HTH. BIDI..

Different how? Legally - I don't see where it's specified that you must have no access to a kitchen in order to claim lunch.

Maybe you should check some of the other examples. The next one down covers going to a permanent office and then travelling from there - nothing whatsoever saying you're under any obligation to utilise the permanent office for sustenance:

James is employed as a travelling salesman visiting customers across the UK throughout the day. Each day he travels from his home to his office and from there travels to visit his customers. He returns to the office after visiting his last customer before travelling home.

The cost of travel between James’ home and office and any associated subsistence costs incurred on those journeys are not allowable as this is ordinary commuting. However the cost of travel and subsistence incurred by James after he leaves the office on his way to his first customer, and the costs incurred in travelling between customers and in returning to the office are all allowable under section 337 as they are incurred in the performance of the duties.

Or what about this, where you have the clear OPTION of making lunch at home:

A deduction is only allowed for subsistence costs which are attributable to the business travel i.e. costs incurred in the course of the journey which are additional to any costs that the employee would ordinarily incur if they were not travelling on business. For example a deduction would be allowed for the cost of a sandwich purchased at a station whilst travelling on business but not for the cost of a sandwich prepared at home and consumed whilst travelling as this is not a cost incurred in the course of the journey.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim31815

So there you go - according to HMRC's very own examples and technical guidance you can choose whether to prepare a sandwich (not claimable because you're preparing prior to the qualifying journey) or buy on the road.

Your turn now - you provide me some legislation, technical guidance or case law that says claiming sustenance during a journey requires you to have no other options, no access to a kitchen and no ability to prepare food. Then you find me some guidance that differentiates lunch from any other kind of food or drink.

Or you can continue to make snarky comments and push on with myths and misconceptions with absolutely no sources, evidence or justification beyond a feeling.

[malvolio]

Different how? Legally - I don't see where it's specified that you must have no access to a kitchen in order to claim lunch.

Maybe you should check some of the other examples. The next one down covers going to a permanent office and then travelling from there - nothing whatsoever saying you're under any obligation to utilise the permanent office for sustenance:



Or what about this, where you have the clear OPTION of making lunch at home:



Source: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim31815

So there you go - according to HMRC's very own examples and technical guidance you can choose whether to prepare a sandwich (not claimable because you're preparing prior to the qualifying journey) or buy on the road.

Your turn now - you provide me some legislation, technical guidance or case law that says claiming sustenance during a journey requires you to have no other options, no access to a kitchen and no ability to prepare food. Then you find me some guidance that differentiates lunch from any other kind of food or drink.

Which bits of "associated with the journey" and/or "whilst travelling" are you having problems with?

Bored now. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Yours is wrong.

[vwdan]

Which bits of "associated with the journey" and/or "whilst travelling" are you having problems with?

Bored now. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Yours is wrong.

If you work at a temporary work place (I.e., away from the 24 month rule) then your entire day is business travel on a customer site. Which bit of that are you having trouble with?

[pr1]

Which bits of "associated with the journey" and/or "whilst travelling" are you having problems with?

Bored now. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Yours is wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim31815

Following the decision in Nolder v Walters (15TC380) ‘travel expenses’ for this purpose include the actual costs of travel together with any subsistence expenditure and other associated costs that are incurred in making the journey. This includes:

- any necessary subsistence costs incurred in the course of the journey
- the cost of meals necessarily purchased whilst an employee is at a temporary workplace
- the cost of the accommodation and any necessary meals where an overnight stay is needed. This will be the case even where the employee stays away for some time

[vwdan]

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim31815

Following the decision in Nolder v Walters (15TC380) ‘travel expenses’ for this purpose include the actual costs of travel together with any subsistence expenditure and other associated costs that are incurred in making the journey. This includes:

- any necessary subsistence costs incurred in the course of the journey
- the cost of meals necessarily purchased whilst an employee is at a temporary workplace
- the cost of the accommodation and any necessary meals where an overnight stay is needed. This will be the case even where the employee stays away for some time

Funny how he's yet to post a SINGLE piece of evidence baking up his claims and aggressive manner.

[MrButton]

Lots. IR35 investigations are usually triggered by an anomaly in your annual SAR. High expenses for no obvious reason such as lunch with no associated overnight stays is one.

The main trick to avoid IR35 hassle is to be squeaky clean with the details. In these days of iXRBL-coded returns, Hector can see very deeply.

If by SAR you mean SATR then where on the SATR do you put associated overnight stays with lunch expenses?

[MrButton]

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim31815

Following the decision in Nolder v Walters (15TC380) ‘travel expenses’ for this purpose include the actual costs of travel together with any subsistence expenditure and other associated costs that are incurred in making the journey. This includes:

- any necessary subsistence costs incurred in the course of the journey
- the cost of meals necessarily purchased whilst an employee is at a temporary workplace
- the cost of the accommodation and any necessary meals where an overnight stay is needed. This will be the case even where the employee stays away for some time

^
And example 1 of the guidance on the HMRC site says the journey starts when you leave home and ends when you arrive back.

Interesting discussion though as a lot of accountants say don't do it. Maybe as it saves them a little work?

[malvolio]

^
And example 1 of the guidance on the HMRC site says the journey starts when you leave home and ends when you arrive back.

Interesting discussion though as a lot of accountants say don't do it. Maybe as it saves them a little work?

Or maybe they're not looking for silly loopholes to save £2 a day?

[vwdan]

Or maybe they're not looking for silly loopholes to save £2 a day?

Ah, so now we're using a "silly loophole"? I thought you said we were just straight up wrong and acting incorrectly before.

Do you claim your 45p/mile or train fare etc?

You're making distinctions that don't legally exist - if you think this is a loophole then you shouldn't be claiming any travel expenses whatsoever.

In fact, if you go down that route, you shouldn't even be claiming overnight expenses on your contracted clients site because that's the same legislation and the same loophole.

How come you won't engage with this discussion in a proper, evidence led way? Why do you feel lunch is magically different to other expenses?

Edit: I wanted to add - I think it's fine to be risk adverse. I don't care whether you claim or not and why would I? I think it's reasonable to make the point that claiming lunch without an overnight stay screams run of the mill contractor.

My problem, however, is people (You in this thread) posting opinionated statements as facts when they appear to be demonstrably untrue. Then you're digging down on it and throwing your toys out because the evidence (HMRC technical guidance, legislation and case law) don't agree with what you THINK it should be. You've not provided any evidence, any sources or any proof that your worldview is correct. Yet it doesn't stop you coming back with snarky comments just because you can't bear the possibility that your presumption is incorrect.