Reply to: 24 Month Rule - Paying Back of Claimed Expenses

[radish2008]

Yeah, of course. It's only tax law, innit...

I didn't say it wasn't stupid. In fact there is a very strong case for the 24 month rule not applying to Ltd Co contractors at all, but that has been ignored by HMT every time it's been raised. Meanwhile we are where we are and saying laws can be ignored because nobody (in your experience) has been done for breaking them is the stupid bit.

An example here

[malvolio]

exactly - not worth worrying about

Yeah, of course. It's only tax law, innit...

I didn't say it wasn't stupid. In fact there is a very strong case for the 24 month rule not applying to Ltd Co contractors at all, but that has been ignored by HMT every time it's been raised. Meanwhile we are where we are and saying laws can be ignored because nobody (in your experience) has been done for breaking them is the stupid bit.

[pr1]

That's plainly stupid. Once again I think this is an evidence questions. Who has ever been prosecuted by HMRC for something like this ? Ever ?

exactly - not worth worrying about

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Like many things all discussions about change of location WRT the 24 month rule are speculative. We only have HMRC guidance and case law to go on and it would ultimately come down to one tax inspector’s opinion vs your ability to argue otherwise (or tribunal if it went that far).

[radish2008]

The quick (and very rough) test for London is if you would travel to the same mainline railway station. Coming out of Waterloo and walking south rather than north is not a different journey, having to go to Marylebone rather than Waterloo would be.

But I agree, you need two temporary locations for expenses to be claimable (which is why umbrella users can't claim anything, incidentally). If you've only ever had one then it's a BIK.

That's plainly stupid. Once again I think this is an evidence questions. Who has ever been prosecuted by HMRC for something like this ? Ever ?

[northernladuk]

In the OP's case that it's not a single assignment. It's multiple assignments in a single location.

If you're an IPSE member, it might be worth a call to the tax helpline. Failing that, HMRC's helpline.

But you could argue it's with an overarching contract. The new work is just changes to the schedule of work. Would be interesting to see what IPSE or HMRC say.

[eek]

I thought that had changed - I'm sure that I've posted that before and either Lucy or Lisa at CU said that they had had different guidance from HMRC about being able to claim for travel if you were working for only one contract under an umbrella company.

That may have changed since then though.

If it was Lisa it would be in reference to the HMRC's guidance notes with expenses and I don't remember any change quite that large appearing in them.

Mind you umbrellas are a sideline here. With an umbrella you sign a contracting stating that you are working for company a at location x and commuting isn't an allowed expense. With a limited company always have work to do at home and therefore the commute is allowable business travel...

[mudskipper]

In the OP's case that it's not a single assignment. It's multiple assignments in a single location.

If you're an IPSE member, it might be worth a call to the tax helpline. Failing that, HMRC's helpline.

[northernladuk]

My thinking is that you'd have an overarching contract working for your limited company and also for an umbrella - which would mean that the expenses are allowed because each contract is to a temporary location.

I can find a post from 2015 where I said that Lisa had got clarification about the final contract being allowed to claim travel expenses, so all I can presume is that some time in 2014/15 there is a post about it from Lisa

Well I found the one I was thinking of which is before yours. Lisa clearly states that a single assignments means it is permanent and also states it's changed and the last assignment is now classed as temporary.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1936958

Unless I've missed something I can't find anything to say the rule about a single assignment has changed.

[TheFaQQer]

But this is about brollies so not sure how relavant it is.

My thinking is that you'd have an overarching contract working for your limited company and also for an umbrella - which would mean that the expenses are allowed because each contract is to a temporary location.

I can find a post from 2015 where I said that Lisa had got clarification about the final contract being allowed to claim travel expenses, so all I can presume is that some time in 2014/15 there is a post about it from Lisa

[northernladuk]

Rather frustratingly I can find a ton of posts confirming one assignment means no expenses but not the one TF is talking about where I am sure Lisa said it had changed.

Interestingly enough though, a few of them talk about stopping claiming once you know it's going to be the only one, nothing about paying it back... But then I didn't read them all.

Like this one.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/showthread.php?t=87909

And the search I used is...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Si...iw=360&bih=560

But this is about brollies so not sure how relavant it is.

[northernladuk]

I guess it's only moot if the OP has already repaid expenses to the company - if not, then I'd be making sure whether the advice has changed or not.

I know I said something about not being able to claim it if you'd only done one contract and one of the CU MDs definitely said that it had changed.

I meant with the rules changing around expenses and Umbrellas since. I thought that thread was before the changes.

[TheFaQQer]

Yeah. I saw that thread when I was searching. Wish I'd saved the link now... But it's a moot point now surely?

I guess it's only moot if the OP has already repaid expenses to the company - if not, then I'd be making sure whether the advice has changed or not.

I know I said something about not being able to claim it if you'd only done one contract and one of the CU MDs definitely said that it had changed.

[northernladuk]

I thought that had changed - I'm sure that I've posted that before and either Lucy or Lisa at CU said that they had had different guidance from HMRC about being able to claim for travel if you were working for only one contract under an umbrella company.

That may have changed since then though.

Yeah. I saw that thread when I was searching. Wish I'd saved the link now... But it's a moot point now surely?

[TheFaQQer]

As mal says, that's why if you do a single contract with an umbrella then you can't reclaim travel expenses regardless of duration.

I thought that had changed - I'm sure that I've posted that before and either Lucy or Lisa at CU said that they had had different guidance from HMRC about being able to claim for travel if you were working for only one contract under an umbrella company.

That may have changed since then though.