Sticking out a boring contract

[Chunk]

Tulip...

The purpose of the travelling rules are that you decide where you live based on where work is but HMRC give you two years to decide whether you want to move (house / job) or not.

hence after two years work in the same vicinity say London you really can't justify claiming mileage to get there as you have had enough time to find a job nearer or moved closer.

That's just not true, I'm afraid...

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Tulip...

The purpose of the travelling rules are that you decide where you live based on where work is but HMRC give you two years to decide whether you want to move (house / job) or not.

It's got nothing to do with that. If your workplace is a permanent one then you can't claim travel expenses regardless of how far away it is. It all boils down to whether or not a workplace is considered temporary.

The point is that HMRC will only consider a workplace temporary for up to 2 years if you work there, more than 40% of the time. For workplace, read "any place that involves a similar or similar costing journey".

There's an example on the HMRC that shows that it's not necessarily down to distance if your journey is significantly different.

[eek]

There's an example on the HMRC that shows that it's not necessarily down to distance if your journey is significantly different.

Is that the bridge example? If it is it's very explicit due to the lack of said bridge and nowt to do with what you want to use it for

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Is that the bridge example? If it is it's very explicit due to the lack of said bridge and nowt to do with what you want to use it for

The poster you replied to said that distance isn't relevant - which is partly true. They also said you could just get a different bus or train - that is, as you say rubbish, as that alone would be unlikely to make a journey significantly different.

The subject of whether the whole of London would be considered the same for the purposes of the 24 month rule has been done to death on here. Personally I don't think you can just say the whole of the London is the same - if you live in Essex then the journeys into East London and West London are significantly different and if you're happy to argue the toss with HMRC, then claim it.

Fortunately I work from home mostly and never spend more than 40% of my time on-site so I just claim all of my business travel without having to worry about this bollocks!

[cojak]

That's just not true, I'm afraid...

Sigh...

Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example

EIM32075 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace

[TheFaQQer]

That's just not true, I'm afraid...

Do explain more

[eek]

It's got nothing to do with that. If your workplace is a permanent one then you can't claim travel expenses regardless of how far away it is. It all boils down to whether or not a workplace is considered temporary.

The point is that HMRC will only consider a workplace temporary for up to 2 years if you work there, more than 40% of the time. For workplace, read "any place that involves a similar or similar costing journey".

There's an example on the HMRC that shows that it's not necessarily down to distance if your journey is significantly different.

Actually reading that I can argue and find fault with something in every paragraph but meh can't be arsed.

I'll just add you to the don't know as much as you think you do muppet list.....

[northernladuk]

Actually reading that I can argue and find fault with something in every paragraph but meh can't be arsed.

I'll just add you to the don't know as much as you think you do muppet list.....

Lol, I started a response three times to his post as well and gave up.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Actually reading that I can argue and find fault with something in every paragraph but meh can't be arsed.

I'll just add you to the don't know as much as you think you do muppet list.....

What a cop-out. If you're such an expert, please elaborate...

Here's my points again, in concise format ready for you to refute:

* You can't claim travel expenses for ordinary commuting or travel to a permanent workplace
* You can claim travel expenses for business travel including travel to a temporary workplace, within the bounds of what HMRC consider to be a temporary workplace, and
* If you work less than 40% of your time at a temporary workplace, then the 24 month rule is irrelevant
* If you work more than 40% of your time at a temporary workplace, then if you work there for more than 24 months (or as soon as you know you'll be there for more than 24 months), its no longer treated as a temporary workplace and you have to stop claiming.
* All workplaces within the same area, such that any change to your journey is not significant, are treated as the same workplace. HMRC make no reference to distance, but focus soley on whether a change in workplace has a substantial effect on either a) the journey itself or b) the cost of the journey.

[cojak]

It's got nothing to do with that. If your workplace is a permanent one then you can't claim travel expenses regardless of how far away it is. It all boils down to whether or not a workplace is considered temporary.

The point is that HMRC will only consider a workplace temporary for up to 2 years if you work there, more than 40% of the time. For workplace, read "any place that involves a similar or similar costing journey".

There's an example on the HMRC that shows that it's not necessarily down to distance if your journey is significantly different.

Sigh....

EIM32080 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: limited duration, the 24 month rule