Originally posted by radish2008
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Travel - 24 month rule two clients in central London"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostOk cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostOk cool. This was part of another investigation though right ? They didn't pull you because you claimed expenses after the 24 month rule. And HMRC lost. So is this not a legal precedent and shouldn't we be quoting your case when queries like this are raised ?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostYes, me
I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different, I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.
In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.
My investigation went on for 4 years and I eventually, with the help of PCG, got them to drop it so I didn't pay anything back.
The general rule though is the direction of travel is what they will judge you on.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostYou would think. 18 months at client 1, 3 months off then started at client 2. They said the clock started ticking when I started at client 1 and the 3 month break wasn't long enough.
There was no mention of the 40% rule either by PCG or HMRC. This was in the early 2000s so it may not have been in place at the time? I can't recall it being mentioned otherwise I would have used it in my defence.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostIsn't that what the 40% rule is for?
There was no mention of the 40% rule either by PCG or HMRC. This was in the early 2000s so it may not have been in place at the time? I can't recall it being mentioned otherwise I would have used it in my defence.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostYes, they did. I explained that the 4 miles between offices would be hard to fit into a square mile
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostIsn't that what the 40% rule is for?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostYes, me
I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different , I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.
In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.
.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostYes, me
I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different, I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.
In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.
My investigation went on for 4 years and I eventually, with the help of PCG, got them to drop it so I didn't pay anything back.
The general rule though is the direction of travel is what they will judge you on.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostSomewhere between 0 and 0 I would think.
Can anyone find anyone else (apart from the footballer who's case was dropped after 2 years) that has been asked ?
I worked in Edinburgh at two different clients. The route from my home office to their offices were different, I had 3 months off between contracts and driving from one client office to the other was just over 4 miles.
In my mind that was enough of a break and a difference in location but HMRC (during my IR35 investigation) insisted the Square Mile Rule applied and therefore I should have stopped claiming travel after 24 months.
My investigation went on for 4 years and I eventually, with the help of PCG, got them to drop it so I didn't pay anything back.
The general rule though is the direction of travel is what they will judge you on.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostIsn't it what HMRC thinks that counts?
I think you are right though....
In this case (a hypothetical case as we don't actually know the OP travels into Liverpool St) we need to look at an example HMRC gives around the square mile (with IIRC no statement about change in method and cost of journey) against another HMRC statement:
If a change of workplace does not have any substantial effect on the employee’s journey, or the expense of that journey, the change is ignored
In this case there is substantial effect on the expense of the journey so the change is not ignored. It is actually clear. The only reason I say is is a grey area is because HMRC will disagree.
Edit: and her is the example:
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-man...anual/eim32089
Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: example
A computer consultant is the only employee of a company that she controls. She is a specialist in banking systems. She spends 18 months working full-time at the headquarters of a merchant bank in Lombard Street in the City of London. She then moves next door to design a new computer system for a different bank where she expects to stay working full-time for 22 months. After that assignment she moves to a bank close by on Cheapside for 17 months. The employee expects to work continuously in the City of London albeit on the premises of different banks. Her travel from home to work will be broadly the same every day. No deduction is due for the cost of travel between her home and any of these workplaces.
This example illustrates the effect of the rule in Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 that requires us to ignore a change of workplace if that change does not have any significant effect on the employee’s journey to work, see EIM32280.
This example illustrates the effect of the rule in Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 that requires us to ignore a change of workplace if that change does not have any significant effect on the employee’s journey to work or the expense of that journey, see EIM32280.
...then in the example I give, there is a clear and significant decrease in the expense of the journey.Last edited by northernladyuk; 13 November 2017, 15:20.
Leave a comment:
-
It's the City of London. As far as Hector is concerned, that is one location. Get a gig in Reading, or even Canary Wharf, and you might have a case.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: