Reply to: 24 month rule - specific question

[Old Greg]

I have been working in my current contract for 19 months and this will end at month 20. My current contract has my base site as ‘A’ but due to ease and lots of flex within the company I work 2-3 days per week in site ‘B’ and the remainder from home.

I now have another 6-12 months on offer with the same company but different project/role.

The new role will have a base of site ‘B’.

As my base sites are different from contract 1 to contract 2 and the mileage between both is 70 miles can I simply restart the 2 yr rule? Or is it based on where I actually sped time?

...confused and don’t want to play with fire.

Did you start spending 40% of your time at site B from Day 1? If so, I think you cannot personally claim travel from your Ltd from the point at which you accept the renewal. If your contractual base is site A, there is no reason why your Ltd cannot continue to claim mileage from the client for travel to Site B, if that has always been your arrangement.

[northernladuk]

I have been working in my current contract for 19 months and this will end at month 20. My current contract has my base site as ‘A’ but due to ease and lots of flex within the company I work 2-3 days per week in site ‘B’ and the remainder from home.

I now have another 6-12 months on offer with the same company but different project/role.

The new role will have a base of site ‘B’.

As my base sites are different from contract 1 to contract 2 and the mileage between both is 70 miles can I simply restart the 2 yr rule? Or is it based on where I actually sped time?

...confused and don’t want to play with fire.

It's all about geographic location. Nothing to do with client at all.

All very well explained in a couple of posts in this thread and the newbie guides to the right...

https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...-nutshell.html

It might seem complicated in your description but it isn't as you'll see in the thread above.

[ASW]

Client v Site

I have been working in my current contract for 19 months and this will end at month 20. My current contract has my base site as ‘A’ but due to ease and lots of flex within the company I work 2-3 days per week in site ‘B’ and the remainder from home.

I now have another 6-12 months on offer with the same company but different project/role.

The new role will have a base of site ‘B’.

As my base sites are different from contract 1 to contract 2 and the mileage between both is 70 miles can I simply restart the 2 yr rule? Or is it based on where I actually sped time?

...confused and don’t want to play with fire.

[malvolio]

Dear God, why is everything so complicated? The basic rules aren't all that clear so some interpretation is probably acceptable. If you get it wrong either way it is easily corrected, either by back-claiming relief you thought you shouldn't get or by adjusting your next SAR to return relief you've claimed in error. Nobody's going to go to jail for a marginal edge case.

[Old Greg]

Yes, there's a point here. The existence of an offer or an email telling you there will be an offer is not an expectation that the engagement will continue. It's an expectation that they want it to continue. But until you give them an indication that you are accepting, there's no expectation that it will.

The risk is that by delaying your acceptance the client gives up on you and withdraws the offer. So you have to decide whether that risk is worth claiming expenses for a little longer. And that depends on the level of the expenses, how much you like/dislike the contract, how big is your reserve, do you have any other offers, etc.

You give the impression to the client that you will take it without actually expecting to. Cover yourself by continuing to apply for contracts up until the point at which you receive the paperwork. In any case, you have to be pretty naive to 'expect' to remain somewhere in the absence of the renewal paperwork.

It's perfectly defensible IMO to claim up until the point at which you receive the paper work, because neither party's intentions are anything more than friendly word about future business opportunities. No idea if there is any case law on this.

[WordIsBond]

The trick is not to expect to accept the extension until the last possible minute.

Yes, there's a point here. The existence of an offer or an email telling you there will be an offer is not an expectation that the engagement will continue. It's an expectation that they want it to continue. But until you give them an indication that you are accepting, there's no expectation that it will.

The risk is that by delaying your acceptance the client gives up on you and withdraws the offer. So you have to decide whether that risk is worth claiming expenses for a little longer. And that depends on the level of the expenses, how much you like/dislike the contract, how big is your reserve, do you have any other offers, etc.

[Old Greg]

That is why the guides use the term expectation. There are examples of when the reality doesn't meet expectation. Weirdly if the expectation is 25 months and you get binned at 23 the expectation still stands and you can't claim.

The trick is not to expect to accept the extension until the last possible minute.

[zonkkk]

Thanks for all the replies. That was my understanding as well (claim up to confirmation date even if claim gets recorded after confirmation), but wanted to hear the voice of the people in the matter.

I'll confirm with the accountant as well.

[northernladuk]

That is why the guides use the term expectation. There are examples of when the reality doesn't meet expectation. Weirdly if the expectation is 25 months and you get binned at 23 the expectation still stands and you can't claim.

[Old Greg]

I'm sure HMRC could claim there's a difference between knowing and confirming:

1 May - manager emails to say you're getting an extension - you *know*
31 May - agency issues the paperwork - your're *confirmed*

There is considerable debate in epistemology as to whether 'justified true belief' is a sufficient condition for knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

Imagine this scenario:

1 May - manager emails to say you're getting an extension - you *know*
31 May - agency emails to say you're getting binned

In this case, you didn't 'know' on 1 May that you would get an extension because you can't know something that is untrue.

In a more 'reasonable' interpretation, you have a good business opportunity on 1 May but you don't 'know' with a reasonable level of certainty until 31 May.

[northernladuk]

HMRC's guidance is littered with the word 'expectation'. The manager emails he's getting an extention is clearly expectation so 1 May will be the date they use.

[malvolio]

I'm sure HMRC could claim there's a difference between knowing and confirming:

1 May - manager emails to say you're getting an extension - you *know*
31 May - agency issues the paperwork - your're *confirmed*

And that's covered by anticipated. If you don't actually blow the 24 month barrIer you can always back claim.

[ladymuck]

I'm sure HMRC could claim there's a difference between knowing and confirming:

1 May - manager emails to say you're getting an extension - you *know*
31 May - agency issues the paperwork - your're *confirmed*

[northernladuk]

So you stop when you got confirmation. You can claim anything before. Not that complicated really.

[malvolio]

Probably. It's dated back from the anticipated or known end date. Presumably up to yesterday you anticipated the gig not continuing over 24 months but now you know it will.