Another 2-Year-Rule Question !

[centurian]

It is 40% of time in that geographical location over a rolling 2 year period so 3 months is no way near enough, I don't believe 6 months will really cut it either but you would have to do the sums.

WHS

I have generally considered that a break ticks down the clock at the same rate. So your clock is currently 18 months - a 3 month break brings it down to 15 months, meaning you would then be able to take one 6 monther in that area again (but only one).

However, I would still not be 100% convinced that this meets the rules so best to speak to an expert.

[malvolio]

Scoping the rules is actually dead simple, honest.

Starting from today, you know when the projected end of your contract is. Counting back from there, if you have spent more than 40% of your working time over the previous 24 months at substantially the same location/journey, regardless of client, the rule applies. Otherwise it doesn't.

That's why trying to work out break periods and so on doesn't work. It's a dynamic, day-by-day assessmment.

[centurian]

Scoping the rules is actually dead simple, honest.

Starting from today, you know when the projected end of your contract is. Counting back from there, if you have spent more than 40% of your working time over the previous 24 months at substantially the same location/journey, regardless of client, the rule applies. Otherwise it doesn't.

That's why trying to work out break periods and so on doesn't work. It's a dynamic, day-by-day assessmment.

But by that logic, you would get hit after 6 months - if you accept a 6 month extension.

Contract A - Location X - 6 months
Contract B - Location Y - 6 months
Contract C - Location Z - 6 months
Contract D - Location Z - 6 months (today being day 1 of this contract)

So the end point of the rolling 24 months is the end of contract D - and working back 24 months from that point, about 50% of the time will have been at location Z - well over the 40% mark - unless you have very large amounts of WFH / time off.

[RockyBalboa]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...renewal-3.html

[malvolio]

But by that logic, you would get hit after 6 months - if you accept a 6 month extension.

Contract A - Location X - 6 months
Contract B - Location Y - 6 months
Contract C - Location Z - 6 months
Contract D - Location Z - 6 months (today being day 1 of this contract)

So the end point of the rolling 24 months is the end of contract D - and working back 24 months from that point, about 50% of the time will have been at location Z - well over the 40% mark - unless you have very large amounts of WFH / time off.

Nobody said it was fair. But assuming X, Y and Z are different you've only been there a year.

The mistake people make is assuming you're entitled to 24 months expenses. You aren't.

[centurian]

Nobody said it was fair. But assuming X, Y and Z are different you've only been there a year.

Well you have only been there for 6 months - you intend to be there for a year.

But in any case, I think you will find that the scenario described (which is a very common one IMHO) - does fall foul of your 'dead simple' rule described. Over a rolling 24 month period, you have spent more than 40% at location Z.

There's nothing to say you also had to start the 24 month rolling window at location Z, which is perhaps what you meant, but then it becomes a much less simple rule.

[malvolio]

Well you have only been there for 6 months - you intend to be there for a year.

But in any case, I think you will find that the scenario described (which is a very common one IMHO) - does fall foul of your 'dead simple' rule described. Over a rolling 24 month period, you have spent more than 40% at location Z.

There's nothing to say you also had to start the 24 month rolling window at location Z, which is perhaps what you meant, but then it becomes a much less simple rule.

No es comprende....

Assuming the Z-location gig is in 6 month bits, and the three locations are not sufficiently similar that HMRC treat them as one, you've only got 18 months at most at the Z location.

[centurian]

My scenario - an extremely common scenario IMHO. Additional note : Location X, Y and Z are substantially different locations.

Contract A - Location X - 6 months
Contract B - Location Y - 6 months
Contract C - Location Z - 6 months
Contract D - Location Z - 6 months (today being day 1 of this contract)

Your dead simple rule

Starting from today, you know when the projected end of your contract is. Counting back from there, if you have spent more than 40% of your working time over the previous 24 months at substantially the same location/journey, regardless of client, the rule applies. Otherwise it doesn't.

Plugging my scenario into the rule:

Counting back 24 months from [end of contract D - 6 months from now], you [will have] spent more than 40% [12/24 = 50%] of your working time over the previous 24 months at [Location Z].

Sorry, but your 'dead simple' rule has a fundamental flaw in it. Can you not see that.

[malvolio]

My scenario - an extremely common scenario IMHO. Additional note : Location X, Y and Z are substantially different locations.



Your dead simple rule



Plugging my scenario into the rule:

Counting back 24 months from [end of contract D - 6 months from now], you [will have] spent more than 40% [12/24 = 50%] of your working time over the previous 24 months at [Location Z].

Sorry, but your 'dead simple' rule has a fundamental flaw in it. Can you not see that.

Yes, but it's not me that's wrong. The 40% margin only applies once you exceed 24 months at a given location. Which I thought was understood. Clearly not.

OK, so restating the bleedin' obvious:

Starting from today, you know when the projected end of your contract is. Counting back from there, if you have spent more than 24 months at substantially the same location/journey and if so, more than 40% of your working time over that 24 month period at that location , regardless of client, the rule applies. Otherwise it doesn't.