When you have a minute...

[jamesbrown]

Remember that there's a specific provision (5%) for expenses within the IR35 deemed payment calculation. However, I'd be careful about conflating the rules underlying these proposals, as currently suggested, with those surrounding IR35. While D&C (and hence SD&C) is one component of IR35, it remains only one component, and it's only necessary to demonstrate one of the pillars to avoid a contract being caught by IR35. In short, the interaction between these two things could be, er, "interesting". It's as if a completely new corporate structure is needed to help clarify all this and provide some employee-style benefits to make everything right.

[MicrosoftBob]

That doesn't really work out for contractors though. To take a couple of recent years of my own: I worked north of Leeds, then in Cambridge, then in the East Midlands, then in London, then in a different part of the East Midlands, then in Cambridge again, then London again; and during that time I was approached about gigs in Manchester, Bristol, Reading, and other places I've forgotten about. Am I supposed to move home, lock, stock, horse and carriage every time?

It's not often I say this, but what he said

[MicrosoftBob]

I think we have to be careful with our arguments here. You can have paid holidays, gym memberships etc.. It's just your company does not want to provide it as a benefit. Companies pay things to employees to keep them happy, not to affect their tax positions. I think a couple of comments might be forgetting this distinction so muddying the waters.

But employees often claim to effect their tax position, given the option of taking the train or driving on business how many drive so they rack up the expenses, it also incidentally helps their companies tax position as well

[northernladuk]

But employees often claim to effect their tax position, given the option of taking the train or driving on business how many drive so they rack up the expenses, it also incidentally helps their companies tax position as well

Am not so sure that is true...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

What does the panel think about MP's claiming home to work travel http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...k_1403174a.pdf

[TykeMerc]

What does the panel think about MP's claiming home to work travel http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...k_1403174a.pdf

Simple really, one rule for them, another for everyone else, nothing even slightly new about that.

If I tried to expense some of the stuff they're permitted or even encouraged to do then I would be jailed for tax evasion.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Simple really, one rule for them, another for everyone else, nothing even slightly new about that.

If I tried to expense some of the stuff they're permitted or even encouraged to do then I would be jailed for tax evasion.

Quite This link takes you to an Excel spreadsheet for MP's travel expenses Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority - accommodation and travel feature pretty heavily

[MicrosoftBob]

What does the panel think about MP's claiming home to work travel http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/m...k_1403174a.pdf

In fairness it has been sucessive governments that politicised expenses, as pay rises were seen as bad publicity they kept them lower than they wanted and encouraged MPs to claim as much as possible

Then of course in an internet age, journalists start investigating individual MPs expenses and this whole circus kicked off

Looking at what they do, they should be able to claim home to work travel, they have a job outside any normal remit

The problem is expenses have been used as an alternative for pay rises, rather than their right to claim expenses

[northernladuk]

Simple really, one rule for them, another for everyone else, nothing even slightly new about that.

If I tried to expense some of the stuff they're permitted or even encouraged to do then I would be jailed for tax evasion.

Surely you can expense anything you want from your company if there is a business need (or quite possibly not) . Whether your company can get tax relief is another matter. Again, isn't this a case of muddying the issue by not being clear of your relationship to your client/company.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

In fairness it has been sucessive governments that politicised expenses, as pay rises were seen as bad publicity they kept them lower than they wanted and encouraged MPs to claim as much as possible

Then of course in an internet age, journalists start investigating individual MPs expenses and this whole circus kicked off

Looking at what they do, they should be able to claim home to work travel, they have a job outside any normal remit

The problem is expenses have been used as an alternative for pay rises, rather than their right to claim expenses

So almost like a salary sacrifice arrangement really