Reply to: Can I start claiming expenses again?

[northernladuk]

I bow to your superior knowledge.

No superior knowledge. We've argued London a few times and it appears what someone in London sees as a significant change isn't to anyone else out of London so an open argument that can't really be resolved.

It's such a horrible grey no one really knows but some points are a little easier to argue than others, but that's all it will ever be.

[WTFH]

I bow to your superior knowledge.

[northernladuk]

Depends where you live.


If you currently live half way between the two, then one is in the opposite direction to the other, so that might work. Equally if you are currently living beside Bank and walking to the ClientCo, but the new contract will involve getting the Tube, then that would probably work.

Erm... opposite direction but only a few miles? Still not significantly further or costly. I don't think that one is gonna wash.

Even the second example. 5 miles extra? A few tube stops. Not a chance. Once of the examples HMRC have is about London, granted the Square Mile but it does mention a couple of different tube stops.

Think about people outside of London. Significant can be 100's of miles, different counties etc. One part of London to another hardly compares.

[WTFH]

Has anyone asked HMRC if a journey change between Bank London and Canary Wharf is sufficiently different enough?

Depends where you live.


If you currently live half way between the two, then one is in the opposite direction to the other, so that might work. Equally if you are currently living beside Bank and walking to the ClientCo, but the new contract will involve getting the Tube, then that would probably work.

[northernladuk]

Has anyone asked HMRC if a journey change between Bank London and Canary Wharf is sufficiently different enough?

Do we need to? It's about 5 miles isn't it?... Is that really significantly different in cost and distance??

[hoogie]

Has anyone asked HMRC if a journey change between Bank London and Canary Wharf is sufficiently different enough?

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

Not a chance. Fails on 24 month rule. The journey change is not significant enough. Your accountant is right and probably knows more about your situation than we do yet still you question it. But if you'd rather, claim it, and see what happens. [emoji1]

[mudskipper]

OP did say the majority of the journey is the same.

I'd suggest that, given the consensus is 'probably not', there's nothing to lose in asking HMRC for the answer - just make sure that, if they say yes, you get it in writing!

[northernladuk]

Well... EIM32089 mentions two workplaces in the City of London - specifically Lombard Street and Cheapside, which are within half a mile of each other. Given the banking context of that example I believe an argument could be made that by 'City' this example (which of course isn't legislation itself) is talking about the Square Mile. Equally an argument could be made that one could have two temporary workplaces in the much wider area of "London", and the strength of that argument would IMHO depend upon the difference between the two journeys' duration and cost.

We (or at least those of us genuinely in business and not just taking the p) weigh up logic of such arguments and our appetite for risk and make our decisions... which is fine until they move the goalposts retrospectively ;-)

Very good point. Which is why I think people need to understand rather than just get an answer. Very rarely do we get enough information in a post to be able to cover every angle and some of the smaller details can make a huge different to the outcome. If you understand the rule you can then come to the correct decision rather than us taking a stab with half the information.

Doesn't explain why I'm an arse about it though....

[TheFaQQer]

Well... EIM32089 mentions two workplaces in the City of London - specifically Lombard Street and Cheapside, which are within half a mile of each other. Given the banking context of that example I believe an argument could be made that by 'City' this example (which of course isn't legislation itself) is talking about the Square Mile. Equally an argument could be made that one could have two temporary workplaces in the much wider area of "London", and the strength of that argument would IMHO depend upon the difference between the two journeys' duration and cost.

We (or at least those of us genuinely in business and not just taking the p) weigh up logic of such arguments and our appetite for risk and make our decisions... which is fine until they move the goalposts retrospectively ;-)

If the journey is significantly different, then claim; if not then don't. Use your judgement about what is significantly different because HMRC won't do it for you until it's too late.

[matzie]

But there is an example about a new base in London which is
Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example

Doesn't that answer your question? Two bases in London covered. Check. 40% rule covered Check.

Well... EIM32089 mentions two workplaces in the City of London - specifically Lombard Street and Cheapside, which are within half a mile of each other. Given the banking context of that example I believe an argument could be made that by 'City' this example (which of course isn't legislation itself) is talking about the Square Mile. Equally an argument could be made that one could have two temporary workplaces in the much wider area of "London", and the strength of that argument would IMHO depend upon the difference between the two journeys' duration and cost.

(edit:EIM32280 supports those duration and cost criteria:

The basic principle is that a change in the location or the boundaries of a workplace will be recognised as a change of workplace where the change has a substantial effect on:

the journey an employee has to make to get to work and, in particular,
the cost of that journey.
In practice you should recognise the change of workplace in all cases except where the change has made no significant difference to the commuting journey.

)

We (or at least those of us genuinely in business and not just taking the p) weigh up logic of such arguments and our appetite for risk and make our decisions... which is fine until they move the goalposts retrospectively ;-)

[northernladuk]

I have found not all bulletin boards are the same.

I'll get me coat

Am sure your cojones are bigger than that. Just ignore me. There are plenty of helpful posters on here willing to help with any questions you may have. I like people to go away with an understanding not an answer but not everyone likes my approach.

Don't be offended by my style.

[danthomas25]

I have found not all bulletin boards are the same.

I'll get me coat

[northernladuk]

Yes

And the first post didn't answer your question??

I didn't think they were sufficiently close enough, could you detail which example(s) you mean pls (though I appreciate you said 'from memory').

Well this should be enough..
EIM32080 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: limited duration, the 24 month rule

But there is an example about a new base in London which is
Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example

Doesn't that answer your question? Two bases in London covered. Check. 40% rule covered Check.

I thought a change of client would be sufficient but my accountant suggested otherwise.
I guess I thought that as it was a new company, that would be sufficient. It seems not?

Completely wrong. You've not read a single thing have you?

So I looked at the examples and various wordings and thought perhaps there was sufficient justification to allow claiming again based on the location of work.
But perhaps I'm just hoping.

It would appear so.

So things seem to be leaning towards "no you cant" but wondered if anyone had been in a similar situation and could share their thoughts.

That should be a flat no. No leaning, swerving, heading towards. It's a brickwall no.

Happy to hear opinion on the above.

As above with all the relevant legislation attached. That should just about cover it?

[TheFaQQer]

I thought a change of client would be sufficient but my accountant suggested otherwise.
I guess I thought that as it was a new company, that would be sufficient. It seems not?

Nothing to do with the client, or even what company you work through to do it (or if you went permie there, or were a sole trader, or anything else) - it's you the individual going to the same location for a certain amount of time.

Anything else is irrelevant.