24 month rule - a new example honest!

[malvolio]

does anybody know of anybody who has been caught claiming over the 24 month period? if so what is the fine?

I know at least three people who have had long-running fights with HMRC because some ignorant Hector didn't accept that travelling a couple of hundred miles a week for a year or two to work was not business related and so wanted the tax on several tens of thousands. I also know of someone who had an interesting meeting with HMRC over going over the 24 month limit: although in his case he was also claiming a couple of hundred a month for travel and subsistence to a site about ten minutes drive from his home (and no, he wasn't an MP...).

The rules are there and they are enforced. Don't mess with them.

[SueEllen]

does anybody know of anybody who has been caught claiming over the 24 month period? if so what is the fine?

whos responsibility is it if you are putting travel expenses through a unbrella company and they are still being accepted?

thanks

Why you thinking of cheating?

And it's your responsibility regardless of whether you put expenses through an umbrella company or a limited company you are a director off.

[auto elec tech]

does anybody know of anybody who has been caught claiming over the 24 month period? if so what is the fine?

whos responsibility is it if you are putting travel expenses through a unbrella company and they are still being accepted?

thanks

[TykeMerc]

What Malvolio said seems right to me, the critical bit being that it's your first temporary workplace.

[malvolio]

There's also my magical explanation of it all... What's so special about 24 months/

But since the journey is sufficiently different, the expectation is only 9 months you should be OK. More to the point what your expert umbrella has failed to notice is that previously that was your permanent place of work whereas the expenses rules relate to temporary ones; and you haven't had one of them yet. So IMHO the clock starts now.

[Craig@Clarity]

You need to determine whether the location with CompanyA is a temporary or permanent workplace. If the expectation is that you do not spend more than 24 months at CompanyA and it is a significant distance and of cost from the location at CompanyB, it could be argued that CompanyA is temporary and thus the claim of expenses (travel etc) can be claimed. There's a couple of links for you here:

EIM32075 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace

EIM32080 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: definitions: temporary workplace: limited duration, the 24 month rule

[markl]

Sorry yet another 24 month travel expense question, I have done a Google search and looked on here but I can’t find a similar example. Here is my scenario:

I worked permanently for CompanyA for 12 years (and lived 1.5 miles away).
I then took another permanent job for CompanyB and moved 40 miles to be closer to CompanyB, I have now been there five months (so there will be a six month gap by the time I work my notice).
CompanyA has asked if I would go back on a 9 month contract.

The offer was only made last Friday and so far I have only spoken to one of the bigger umbrella companies, who told me that as there has been a six month gap it will be ok.

1) I’m not sure so sure as I think it may still break the 40% rule?
2) Do you agree with them?
3) Will the fact that I have moved house help as the journey time was 5 minutes and will now be over an hour?

Thanks

Mark