Reply to: 24 months clock reset

[simes]

You know, for a guy who corrects people on 'advice' and 'advise', you might consider learning to type 'intents and purposes'.

Grief! About sums it up...

[LondonManc]

If the method and cost stayed the same (i.e. you were driving there and using the same amount more or less of petrol) I'd say that's the same location.

If you drove to one and got the train to another or something you could perhaps argue it.

If I live in north Manchester and would drive 32 miles west Liverpool or 32 miles east to Leeds, would you say they're the same location?

[WordIsBond]

Realistically and for all intensive purposes

You know, for a guy who corrects people on 'advice' and 'advise', you might consider learning to type 'intents and purposes'.

[Old Greg]

not sure you can prove (or disprove) either, though

Prove to a standard based on the balance of probabilities? Of course you can.

[northernladuk]

Have you ever heard of anyone ever being "caught out"* on the expectation part of the rule? I haven't and I've looked and asked in several places

*i.e. forced to pay back tax owed for expenses borne from less than 24 months in a location

Maybe people follow the rules as they are written and there is no need to? Maybe their accountants give them good guidance and they don't do it.

You are looking for how many people do it vs those that get caught and you've no info on either.

[pr1]

Prove yes but the onus would be on you and it's going to be quite a fight to do it. Realistically and for all intensive purposes two companies signing a contract comes as close as possible and would be more than adequate in most instances.

The guidance clearly uses terms around expectation and the contract is expectation. Arguing the difference between that and reality is likely to fall on deaf ears, particularly when there is also an article clearly showing that even if reality is different the expectation still stands.

Can't see how it could be much clearer without being based on actual events which would throw even more complication and cost in for everyone.

Have you ever heard of anyone ever being "caught out"* on the expectation part of the rule? I haven't and I've looked and asked in several places

*i.e. forced to pay back tax owed for expenses borne from less than 24 months in a location

[northernladuk]

not sure you can prove (or disprove) either, though

Prove yes but the onus would be on you and it's going to be quite a fight to do it. Realistically and for all intensive purposes two companies signing a contract comes as close as possible and would be more than adequate in most instances.

The guidance clearly uses terms around expectation and the contract is expectation. Arguing the difference between that and reality is likely to fall on deaf ears, particularly when there is also an article clearly showing that even if reality is different the expectation still stands.

Can't see how it could be much clearer without being based on actual events which would throw even more complication and cost in for everyone.

[pr1]

Knowing is not the same as expecting.

not sure you can prove (or disprove) either, though

[Old Greg]

When you begin a 6 month contract do you know you're doing the full 6 months? Half of mine have ended before that time. Therefore, you may wish to wait until a month or so before as that's when you'll have a much firmer idea.

Knowing is not the same as expecting.

[northernladuk]

When you begin a 6 month contract do you know you're doing the full 6 months? Half of mine have ended before that time. Therefore, you may wish to wait until a month or so before as that's when you'll have a much firmer idea.

It's when you expect to be there and a contract sets out that expectation. The HMRC examples show scenarios where the expectations didn't happen.

EIM32080 - Employment Income Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

The legislation is written in terms of the length of time that it is reasonable to assume, or is likely, that the employee will spend at that workplace

Although the next sentence is very pertinent to what you've just said.

. The effect of the rule is not altered where the expectation does not match the outcome, see example EIM32083.

The example is here
EIM32083 - Employment Income Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

So if your 6 monther took you to say 25 months but you finished after only 3 months doing only 22 months in total you still cannot claim for the 3 months you worked. You go on the expectation which was 6 months taking you over 24...

[PerfectStorm]

Remember you have to stop claiming when you know you are going to exceed 24 months I,e the last renewal that will take you over 24. Not AT 24 months.

When you begin a 6 month contract do you know you're doing the full 6 months? Half of mine have ended before that time. Therefore, you may wish to wait until a month or so before as that's when you'll have a much firmer idea.

[PerfectStorm]

If the method and cost stayed the same (i.e. you were driving there and using the same amount more or less of petrol) I'd say that's the same location.

If you drove to one and got the train to another or something you could perhaps argue it.

[MrButton]

Question to the audience. Is asking HMRC a good or bad idea?

The problem is they will give an answer the OP doesn't want.... a bit like on here.

[zonkkk]

But you have enough information now to make that decision.

I do indeed.

[Old Greg]

Question to the audience. Is asking HMRC a good or bad idea?