Reply to: broken the 24month rule

[Hobosapien]

thanks for the information. I will pick this up with my accountant when he is back end of next week.

If i was to stay contracting with the same company but moved office (40 miles away) for 3 days of the week then would this be acceptable to claim expenses?

My situation in detail is this:

I live in Scotland and travel to London each week. If i moved to an office (same client) outside of London for 3 days a week and 1-2 days a week in London (sometimes work from home) but still travelled from Scotland, this will be fine?


thanks everyone

Consider the 40% rule that means the 24 month rule is only in play if you spend more than 40% of the contract time at a particular client location.

[SueEllen]

How would it cost them any money?

Increase in rates and/or expense costs to get contractors with niche skills to work in certain parts of the country.

[tarbera]

what?

it's one thing moving that rule to private sector. It's quite another to get the client companies to make an inside decision when it will cost them money.

How would it cost them any money?

[Lance]

you wont be claiming any expenses when the new IR35 come into place

https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-list...ice-heard.html

it's one thing moving that rule to private sector. It's quite another to get the client companies to make an inside decision when it will cost them money.

[tarbera]

No need to worry

you wont be claiming any expenses when the new IR35 come into place

https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-list...ice-heard.html

[Waldorf]

broken the 24month rule

At one contractor-rich gig, almost everyone was doing the old start a new limited up every year to avoid the 24 month rule.

Told them it was bollocks, no one seemed ti get caught.

One guy did get investigated some years after, probably unrelated but it was two years of hell for him. He won though.

And people wonder why HMRC want to crack down on abuses by contractors!

If you only have one contract/place of work for each limited company you wouldn’t be able to claim travel anyway, as the travel is not temporary, it’s been the same site for the whole of the employment!

[tails]

thanks for the information. I will pick this up with my accountant when he is back end of next week.

If i was to stay contracting with the same company but moved office (40 miles away) for 3 days of the week then would this be acceptable to claim expenses?

My situation in detail is this:

I live in Scotland and travel to London each week. If i moved to an office (same client) outside of London for 3 days a week and 1-2 days a week in London (sometimes work from home) but still travelled from Scotland, this will be fine?


thanks everyone

[northernladyuk]

So you work for the same company, but not in the same place. Or you work in the same place but not for the same company. As I work for my Ltd Co. I go where "they" send me. On that basis, surely, I'm within the 24 month rule anyway?

Err...

If you never attend a client site for >24 months then you are OK (normal caveats apply etc.)

[Lost It]

So you work for the same company, but not in the same place. Or you work in the same place but not for the same company. As I work for my Ltd Co. I go where "they" send me. On that basis, surely, I'm within the 24 month rule anyway?

Err...

[northernladyuk]

how so?

Surely the 24 month rule is about the workplace being temporary or permanent?
If you move house that doesn't affect a permanent workplace.
.

I know. That's why I posted:

If it is a temporary workplace

[Lance]

If it is a temporary workplace that meets criteria of <24 months, and you move house after 1 year from next door to the workplace to 40 miles away, you should be able to claim from that point up until the point when you are reasonably certain that you will be at the workplace >24 months.

how so?

Surely the 24 month rule is about the workplace being temporary or permanent?
If you move house that doesn't affect a permanent workplace.

Has all this talk of 'it's the journey not the contract' muddied the definition so much?
I cannot see that HMRC would consider you moving 40 miles as having any effect on the temporary nature of your workplace.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I thought that the expenses were claimable but not tax deductible? So the company pays more CT?

I leave it up to my accountant anyway....

The expenses are still tax deductible for the company. They are taxable on the employee as a BIK.

[BrilloPad]

I thought that the expenses were claimable but not tax deductible? So the company pays more CT?

I leave it up to my accountant anyway....

[northernladuk]

If it is a temporary workplace that meets criteria of <24 months, and you move house after 1 year from next door to the workplace to 40 miles away, you should be able to claim from that point up until the point when you are reasonably certain that you will be at the workplace >24 months.

But the clock is dependant on the location move.. not the time you actually put a claim in for it. E.g. Salary runs though a tax year, not from the date you actually pay yourself one etc. The time you put the claim in is rarely the time any period starts. Irrelevant point really. Just seemed odd to think like that.

[stek]

But then how many people do you know ignore the 24 month rule and claim regardless. I've not heard anyone get caught either but only know a few people that have broken it.

For the cost I really don't think this is something that is worth taking the risk over personally. Pay it back and sleep easy.

At one contractor-rich gig, almost everyone was doing the old start a new limited up every year to avoid the 24 month rule.

Told them it was bollocks, no one seemed ti get caught.

One guy did get investigated some years after, probably unrelated but it was two years of hell for him. He won though.