Expenses - 2 year rule

[billridley]

Appreciate if anyone can advise please. I am working at a client company and have had a number of renewals. My next 6 month renewal takes me over the 2 year rule so I appreciate I can no longer claim travelling expenses from my company, and thereby claim tax relief. However I have been asked by my client company to move to another company office as my new base. This will entail a completely different journey (although only 8 miles distance). I can currently commute by train (claiming my monthly season ticket), however the new journey will necessitate a car journey (otherwise a very long commute into and out of London). Am I entitled to claim the new journey on expenses, i.e. is the 2 year rule reset because of the new journey or is it immaterial as I am still contracted to the same company. Thanks for any advice.

[DirtyDog]

If the journey is significantly different, then you can continue to claim - the fact that it's the same client makes no difference.

To me, it sounds like it's a very different journey, so I would continue to claim it. If you decide that it isn't, then you need to stop claiming now.

[northernladuk]

When you say you 'can commute by train' do you actually do it or do you take the car?

Personally I don't agree with the dawg. It's 8 miles which isn't significant and I am not personally bought in to the cost of the journey being a factor. If you can commute to the same office by car or train you could theoretically reset the clock by changing your mode of transport which is obviously ridiculous. How much is the train ticket and how far is it by car?

24 month rules is all about location, not about client as already mentioned.

This thread will descend in to a bun fight as every other thread with the same question (of which there have been plenty). Most recently was Psychocandy's I think. Use the search as described in the thread below to go find them. After that speak to your accountant and see what he is comfortable with and then make your mind up.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/welco...uk-forums.html

[billridley]

I currently commute by train direct from the south coast to Croydon. Road traffic up the A23 past Gatwick into south London is a nightmare and I wouldnt want that car journey every day if there is an alternative. The relocation is to Bromley. No direct trains. I would therefore go into and out of London. A lot more expensive and a lot more time. I would have therefore to consider driving to Bromley via M23 / M25 to keep to a reasonable commute time and cost. Not good but preferable to the train journey which would not be acceptable

[DirtyDog]

Personally I don't agree with the dawg. It's 8 miles which isn't significant and I am not personally bought in to the cost of the journey being a factor. If you can commute to the same office by car or train you could theoretically reset the clock by changing your mode of transport which is obviously ridiculous. How much is the train ticket and how far is it by car?

24 month rules is all about location, not about client as already mentioned.

I agree with what you say (apart from the bit about disagreeing with me) - if the journey is significantly different, then claim; if not then don't.

8 miles may be significantly different, for example

• You are only comparing total distance, and they are in completely different directions
• The original distance is short - eg. it was 2 miles and now it is 10 miles

Just changing the mode of transport isn't enough, though, I agree. I think that the one with the most argument is an OG thread, possibly.

[northernladuk]

I currently commute by train direct from the south coast to Croydon. Road traffic up the A23 past Gatwick into south London is a nightmare and I wouldnt want that car journey every day if there is an alternative. The relocation is to Bromley. No direct trains. I would therefore go into and out of London. A lot more expensive and a lot more time. I would have therefore to consider driving to Bromley via M23 / M25 to keep to a reasonable commute time and cost. Not good but preferable to the train journey which would not be acceptable

Which would backup my argument that your personal choice of transport to suit you cannot reset the clock, but I am sure someone will be along in a minute to argue that.

[northernladuk]

I agree with what you say (apart from the bit about disagreeing with me) - if the journey is significantly different, then claim; if not then don't.

8 miles may be significantly different, for example

• You are only comparing total distance, and they are in completely different directions
• The original distance is short - eg. it was 2 miles and now it is 10 miles

Just changing the mode of transport isn't enough, though, I agree. I think that the one with the most argument is an OG thread, possibly.

8 miles is not significant in any book. Percentage wise maybe but it's 8 miles. The rule was designed to help people with relocation expenses with 2 years being a reasonable time for someone to decide if they were permanent or not. This isn't an issue with an 8 mile change. You have to bear in mind the examples talk about geographic areas, which 8 miles isn't. I think you would be pushing to argue that with HMRC.

[DirtyDog]

I currently commute by train direct from the south coast to Croydon. Road traffic up the A23 past Gatwick into south London is a nightmare and I wouldnt want that car journey every day if there is an alternative. The relocation is to Bromley. No direct trains. I would therefore go into and out of London. A lot more expensive and a lot more time. I would have therefore to consider driving to Bromley via M23 / M25 to keep to a reasonable commute time and cost. Not good but preferable to the train journey which would not be acceptable

If you feel that you could argue with HMRC that the journey is significantly different, then continue to claim it. If you don't, then stop claiming now and sort out an increase to cover your costs if you choose to extend.

This thread will descend in to a bun fight as every other thread with the same question (of which there have been plenty). Most recently was Psychocandy's I think. Use the search as described in the thread below to go find them. After that speak to your accountant and see what he is comfortable with and then make your mind up.

This. No-one here knows whether you'd be able to argue the case or not - half will say yes and half will say no. So - have a think about it, see what's been said in the past, read the rules and examples, and talk to your accountant. With all that done, decide whether you continue to claim or not, and stick to it.

[northernladuk]

This. No-one here knows whether you'd be able to argue the case or not - half will say yes and half will say no. So - have a think about it, see what's been said in the past, read the rules and examples, and talk to your accountant. With all that done, decide whether you continue to claim or not, and stick to it.

I agree!!!

[DirtyDog]

8 miles is not significant in any book. Percentage wise maybe but it's 8 miles. The rule was designed to help people with relocation expenses with 2 years being a reasonable time for someone to decide if they were permanent or not. This isn't an issue with an 8 mile change. You have to bear in mind the examples talk about geographic areas, which 8 miles isn't. I think you would be pushing to argue that with HMRC.

The only argument is that the current location makes it sensible to go by train, whereas the new location does not. However, HMRC makes no case for that being a factor.

Having looked at routes from the south coast to these places on Google Maps (I have no idea where they are - somewhere in northern France?), I think I would either (a) stop claiming and push for an increase; or (b) continue claiming and hope that I wasn't investigated.

I wouldn't want to try to argue it with HMRC that the journey is significantly different, but someone might be able to make a case of it.