The 24-Month Travel Expenses Tax Relief Rule

[GhostofTarbera]

Why on earth would you throw potentially thousands of income away just because of some travelling expenses?

This !!!!!

Unless you are using a helicopter between locations and staying in fancy hotels

Top tip.

If staying in fancy hotels paid by yourself as all inclusive rate, if you go over 2 years, ask your client to pay for hotels directly for a rate reduction

[northernladuk]

Thanks all. I will ensure that no extension runs past 31 March 2019!

Why on earth would you throw potentially thousands of income away just because of some travelling expenses?

[LondonManc]

Thanks all. I will ensure that no extension runs past 31 March 2019!

You can go past that point with your next extension, you can staying working there until 2029, you just lose the tax relief on the expenses. If the work is good and the rate is still good despite paying a bit more for travel, why leave?

[malvolio]

Thanks all. I will ensure that no extension runs past 31 March 2019!

Go read the sticky. The first post shows the fallacy in that statement...

[WTFH]

Thanks all. I will ensure that no extension runs past 31 March 2019!

It's not just a case of making sure an extension doesn't run past then, but when you sign the extension, the end date needs to be before then, whether you quit early or not.

[thisisit]

Thanks all. I will ensure that no extension runs past 31 March 2019!

[LondonManc]

Burt always remember that "location" is a fairly loose concept. ANywhere in the City of London for example, is one location. You have to make a significantly different journey for locations to be considered separate.*



*That said, one example in the HMRC guidelines is about a guy building a bridge. He has different journeys to work depending on which end of the bridge he is working at. They are therefore separate locations.

Yes, I was told journey as much as location comes into it. There were discussions on here about someone working in CW then The City - if you're coming from Manchester, for example, it's train to Euston, then Northern line to Bank. From there, The City job is simply a case of exiting the station, while the CW job involves getting on the DLR; a 10-15 minute extension to a 3 hour journey. For someone who lives in or near London, the two journeys could be significantly different.

[malvolio]

It is based on the location and the point in time that you become aware that you will be at that location for more than 24 months.

Burt always remember that "location" is a fairly loose concept. ANywhere in the City of London for example, is one location. You have to make a significantly different journey for locations to be considered separate.*



*That said, one example in the HMRC guidelines is about a guy building a bridge. He has different journeys to work depending on which end of the bridge he is working at. They are therefore separate locations.

[LondonManc]

I began contracting for Company A on 1 January 2017. On my contract three locations were listed, Company A's HQ (Location A), the actual location were I spent most of my time (Location B) and a third office (Location C).

On the 1st April 2017 the project I was working on moved from being based in Location B to Location C and since then this is the office were I spend the majority of my time.

On 1st April 2018 I began contracting with a different company (Company B). The location on my contract is Company B's HQ (none of the locations above). However, I am based on an account with Company A and working at the same Location C.

My question is where do I stand with the 24-month travel expenses tax relief rule. Is the 24-months based on the company you are contracted to, the location you work from or a combination of both?

1st Jan - 1st Apr 17: Greater than 40% at Location B, therefore that was your base
1st Apr 17 - 1st Apr 18: Greater than 40% at Location C, therefore that was your base.
1st Apr 18 - present: Greater than 40% at Location C, therefore that was your base.
If that remains the case, once you expect it to go past 1st Apr 19 then you should stop claiming. The hard part with this is the point at which the word "expect" kicks in when related to contract extensions. Your best bet is to get a contract that runs through to March 19 and not get a contract extension offer until as late as reasonably possible. It's once you decide that you're going to accept this then it kicks in - if you get the offer on March 14th 2019, then stop claiming expenses from March 15th. You could argue that you are a natural pessimist and never expect a contract to extend until you've actually started the extension so your expectation is only met on 1st April 2019.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

It’s entirely to do with workplace location. Two workplaces in a similar/close location with no significant change to journey time or cost can also count as a single workplace for the purposes of the rule.

You’ve been at Location C since April 2017. If your new contract is longer than a year, meaning you expect to still be at Location C after 1 April 2019 then you can no longer claim travel or associated costs to that location.

If at some point the location changes again, before the 24 months have elapsed, then as far as I understand it you could at that point retrospectively claim for your costs but as long as you have an expectation that you will be there for more than 24 months you cannot.

[northernladuk]

It is based on the location and the point in time that you become aware that you will be at that location for more than 24 months.

Which is explained multiple times, along with other aspects of the 24 month rule in the sticky at the very top of this thread.

Here it is..
https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...-nutshell.html

[WTFH]

I began contracting for Company A on 1 January 2017. On my contract three locations were listed, Company A's HQ (Location A), the actual location were I spent most of my time (Location B) and a third office (Location C).

On the 1st April 2017 the project I was working on moved from being based in Location B to Location C and since then this is the office were I spend the majority of my time.

On 1st April 2018 I began contracting with a different company (Company B). The location on my contract is Company B's HQ (none of the locations above). However, I am based on an account with Company A and working at the same Location C.

My question is where do I stand with the 24-month travel expenses tax relief rule. Is the 24-months based on the company you are contracted to, the location you work from or a combination of both?

It is based on the location and the point in time that you become aware that you will be at that location for more than 24 months.

[thisisit]

I began contracting for Company A on 1 January 2017. On my contract three locations were listed, Company A's HQ (Location A), the actual location were I spent most of my time (Location B) and a third office (Location C).

On the 1st April 2017 the project I was working on moved from being based in Location B to Location C and since then this is the office were I spend the majority of my time.

On 1st April 2018 I began contracting with a different company (Company B). The location on my contract is Company B's HQ (none of the locations above). However, I am based on an account with Company A and working at the same Location C.

My question is where do I stand with the 24-month travel expenses tax relief rule. Is the 24-months based on the company you are contracted to, the location you work from or a combination of both?