Sticking out a boring contract

[cojak]

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.

If you have been there 24 months and spent over 40% of your time there (and 1 day a week WFH still makes it over 40%), then you will not be able to claim once you know that your contract will take you over 24 months.

Assuming you are in what HMRC calls "the same location", the calculation is simple.

1. Work out the expected end date of the contract - Date_1

2. Count back 24 months - Date_2 (should be fairly easy, this bit)

3. If between Date_2 and Date_1 you have spent 40% or more of your time in the client's office, you may not claim expenses as a non-BIK.

4. If reality intervenes and you finish earlier than expected, so putting you outside the 24 month rule, you can back claim the expenses, assuming of course your next gig doesn't fail the "same location" test.

The other key point is that it is a rolling window and should be reassessed constantly.

So if you attend a client for 2 years and leave for 6 months for a different client in a different 'location' then the minimum you would need to be away is 14.4 (60/100*24) months before you can return to the first client and claim travelling expenses to that location (but even accountants argue over this point).

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

The ironic thing is that I am posting in this thread (about boredom) after being so bored in my current gig and I am now reading about stuff (24 month rule etc.) which bores me even more.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

If you have been there 24 months and spent over 40% of your time there (and 1 day a week WFH still makes it over 40%), then you will not be able to claim once you know that your contract will take you over 24 months.

I don't think anybody is disputing any of that, only what is considered "the same location" for the purposes of the rule. HMRC make it quite clear that this should be evaluated on the basis of the effect on your journey and/or the costs of the journey, not the distance.

Yes, realistically the distance between workplaces is likely to tie in closely with the effect on the journey but the bridge example on HMRC's website shows that this isn't *always* the case.

The example you pointed to, two offices close to eachother in the City of London, seems pretty clear cut to me and I agree that simply getting a different tube line or bus route to what is effectively the same area of London is not going to free you from the 24 hour rule.

But London is a big place and I would not automatically consider "in London" to be all the same for the purposes of the 24 hour rule. If you can show that your overall journey or the cost is significantly different, then that is all you need.

[eek]

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.

That wasn't what you wrote last time so still meh......

[cojak]

I don't think anybody is disputing any of that, only what is considered "the same location". HMRC make it clear that this should be evaluated on the basis of the effect on your journey and/or the costs of the journey, not the distance.

Yes, realistically the distance between workplaces is likely to tie in closely with the effect on the journey but the bridge example on HMRC's website shows that this isn't *always* the case.

The example you pointed to, two offices close to eachother in the City of London, seems pretty clear cut to me and I agree that simply getting a different tube line or bus route to what is effectively the same area of London is not going to free you from the 24 hour rule.

But London is a big place and I would not automatically consider "in London" to be all the same for the purposes of the 24 hour rule. If you can show that your overall journey or the cost is significantly different, then that is all you need.

There have been instances of contractors being challenged for working along the M4 corridor - I would be very careful about anything closer than 20 miles apart.

[darmstadt]

So basically HMRC are saying that if you work for more than 24 months at one place you're going to lose money unless your rate goes up to cover this loss of expenses, same goes for if you get another contract in the near vicinity of your previous one? So not only are they restricting your trade but also your client could be losing a valuable resource, bunch of ****wits if you ask me. Lucky I don't have to deal with them (I've been 3+ years and more than 40% at client site and still claim as I'm allowed to here otherwise I would have ****ed off long ago.)

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

There have been instances of contractors being challenged for working along the M4 corridor - I would be very careful about anything closer than 20 miles apart.

Again, it just shows to me that you can't apply blanket statements to this as its more subtle than that - every journey needs to be evaluated on its own merits as it really depends on how you get there.

Two workplaces in London, 10 miles apart, might have significantly different journeys and costs, yet, like you said, two workplaces 20 miles apart but close to the same motorway might not if its just a case of 10 more minutes up the road and an insignificant amount of extra petrol.

[eek]

Again, it just shows to me that you can't apply blanket statements to this as its more subtle than that - every journey needs to be evaluated on its own merits as it really depends on how you get there.

Two workplaces in London, 10 miles apart, might have significantly different journeys and costs, yet, like you said, two workplaces 20 miles apart but close to the same motorway might not if its just a case of 10 more minutes up the road and an insignificant amount of extra petrol.

Exactly what are you arguing about and trying to achieve?

[vetran]

Its a judgement made by an organisation that will benefit if you fail the rule. Any decision you decide to make should reflect that reality or be prepared to pay far more in time & legal / accounting expenses to prove you are right.

They have a bottomless pit of taxpayers money and the fact the default position most staff don't get paid to travel to work except in exceptional circumstances.

[cojak]

Well I can't be arsed with subtlety. I work N-S, E-W and don't have to argue the toss with HMRC...