Reply to: Legitimate expenses - travelling to Dubai

[vadhert]

I cant help feeling what the thought would be if this was the intention of a politician?

[northernladuk]

can't believe you managed to relate this topic to that!

I like to think out of the box.. What can I say

[Sausage Surprise]

I am planning to go to Dubai to explore some potential opportunities and have some business meetings set up. I want to take my family along with me and to stay in a nice hotel. Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to claim for my family but is the cost of the flight for myself and hotel cost a reasonable and legitimate expense? Is there a limit to how much I could reasonably claim for a hotel?

I reckon this beats the 60" plasma to be used as a monitor...

[TheFaQQer]

can't believe you managed to relate this topic to that!

I can

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

You want to be careful. They stone people to death for quitting contracts early out there.

can't believe you managed to relate this topic to that!

[ASB]

Some years ago I had a business trip to joburg for a few days. I took fqmily shipped them to friends in durban and then extended the stay by a month.

company paid all airfares accom in joburg. I biked half of it. Taxman was fine with that in an enqury.

[SueEllen]

They're not HMRC, but UKTI is a government organisation and they had no problem with this when my wife and I went to the USA in a similar situation a few years back. They gave my company (fairly significant) money towards flights and accommodation and were aware we were extending the stay, while also having business meetings, etc.

In bold is the significant difference.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

They're not HMRC, but UKTI is a government organisation and they had no problem with this when my wife and I went to the USA in a similar situation a few years back. They gave my company (fairly significant) money towards flights and accommodation and were aware we were extending the stay, while also having business meetings, etc.

There's nothing wrong with a client reimbursing YourCo for any expenses it wants (by re-billing them). Nor does it matter if OP wants to reimburse himself from HisCo's funds for the trip. It doesn't change the fact that there would likely be a BIK on any expense payments unless OP can show they were wholly, exclusively and necessarily (as this is a personal expense, not a company expense) for the purposes of his job.

[d000hg]

They're not HMRC, but UKTI is a government organisation and they had no problem with this when my wife and I went to the USA in a similar situation a few years back. They gave my company (fairly significant) money towards flights and accommodation and were aware we were extending the stay, while also having business meetings, etc.

[northernladuk]

You want to be careful. They stone people to death for quitting contracts early out there.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Agree with Tykemerc - if you had existing clients in Dubai and were meeting to discuss existing or future projects for a couple of days and decided to take your family with you, that's one thing; if you are going for a week and spend a couple of hours looking at 'possibilities' it's something else altogether

[TykeMerc]

I am planning to go to Dubai to explore some potential opportunities and have some business meetings set up. I want to take my family along with me and to stay in a nice hotel. Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to claim for my family but is the cost of the flight for myself and hotel cost a reasonable and legitimate expense? Is there a limit to how much I could reasonably claim for a hotel?

This sounds awfully familiar, the "it's a business trip honest" line when wheeling your family off on holiday to an expensive location where business is occasionally done.

Since you seem to do all your business via agencies and around Manchester, claiming a "business meeting/some meetings" carries no credibility, unless you were in oil or international finance as an exec, not some code monkey.

[Boo]

None. Wholly and exclusively rule applies. The way it had been explained to me, in the past, is that if you take your spouse and/or family members with you, then it is specifically disallowed, since duality of purpose applies.

I don't believe this is necessarily the case since the underlying purpose of the rtip is what counts. If the underlying purpose is business thne it is allowable as other use is "incidental". Of course, I agree that spouses costs are not allowable in either case.

Boo

[Boo]

I am planning to go to Dubai to explore some potential opportunities and have some business meetings set up. I want to take my family along with me and to stay in a nice hotel. Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to claim for my family but is the cost of the flight for myself and hotel cost a reasonable and legitimate expense? Is there a limit to how much I could reasonably claim for a hotel?

AIUI, if you have receipts there should be no problem claiming the actual amounts but you can use "Scale Rates" instead if you prefer : the allowable Worldwide subsistence rates are downloadable here and you can search for Dubai to get the applicable rate.

The point of using scale rates is that you incur no BIK if your employer compensates you by up to the applicable amount. This is regardless of how much you actually spend and so sometimes living frugally can pay dividends. You still need proof that you incurred living expenses, it's just that the actual costs are not counted, the applicable scale rate applies instead.

If you don't choose to use scale rates then, as I said, if the travel is for the purpose of business only then I don't believe a BIK applies even if the expense is greater than the scale rate applicable amounts. But you need the normal business justification of "wholly, necessarily and exclusively" which might be hard to justify if you take a dozen rooms in a 5 star hotel...

Hth,

Boo

[Scruff]

None. Wholly and exclusively rule applies. The way it had been explained to me, in the past, is that if you take your spouse and/or family members with you, then it is specifically disallowed, since duality of purpose applies.