Reply to: 24 month rule - different ends of London

[Old Greg]

Equally, plenty saying he can claim. The guidance is far from clear, therefore open to interpretation.

Have decided to go with the group with the higher average IQ.

[mudskipper]

And make sure that they cannot link you with your profile here. They may challenge that you have been advised by so many people that it is not claimable, but you still claimed!
In the end it is down to your appetite for risk to be honest, and I wish that you never are investigated.

Equally, plenty saying he can claim. The guidance is far from clear, therefore open to interpretation.

[DeadEyedJacks]

"Replies must clearly indicate Postcode"

Another variant on must live locally...

[rd409]

My view is that if you have considered HMRC's guidance and it's a grey area then make your decision based on what you think is reasonable and make notes of why you made that decision. If you are ever challenged to justify your decision and you have a reasonable interpretation of HMRC's guidance then I can't see how they can charge you penalties for deliberately avoiding tax. Hopefully the worst that would happen is that you would have to pay the tax owed plus interest but it's quite likely that nothing ever comes of it. It's got to be worth a punt, doesn't it.

I am not an accountant though so I am probably completely wrong about that. Have you asked your accountant what they think?

And make sure that they cannot link you with your profile here. They may challenge that you have been advised by so many people that it is not claimable, but you still claimed!
In the end it is down to your appetite for risk to be honest, and I wish that you never are investigated.

[Wanderer]

My view is that if you have considered HMRC's guidance and it's a grey area then make your decision based on what you think is reasonable and make notes of why you made that decision. If you are ever challenged to justify your decision and you have a reasonable interpretation of HMRC's guidance then I can't see how they can charge you penalties for deliberately avoiding tax. Hopefully the worst that would happen is that you would have to pay the tax owed plus interest but it's quite likely that nothing ever comes of it. It's got to be worth a punt, doesn't it.

I am not an accountant though so I am probably completely wrong about that. Have you asked your accountant what they think?

[Jubber]

At the end of the day, if you believe you are right, claim it

Is the right answer !

(IMO)

[warrenboon]

Seems to me it's down to one's application of the term 'substantial effect'. HMRC examples show that (in their humble opinion) 'next door' or '10 tube stops' aren't substantially different, but that 'driving the long way around to the other end of the bridge' is (although their example isn't specific about routes/distances).

Even if we knew exact start/end points for the OP's journeys I suspect we would still not all agree on whether it's substantially different...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

But I thought we were playing lawyers.

Yes but I am only armed with HMR&C guidance - which is a bit like trying to play tennis with a teaspoon

[Old Greg]

No, what I am trying to understand is that why did you take an awkward route for 23 months, and now suddenly at the point when you cannot claim further; changing the route to more logical! I am not accusing you of anything, but as per the court, this would be fishy. The very first question you will be asked is why did you take 23 months to realise this was an awkward route? As per my experience with London Transport, if you are arriving at a terminus then it is very easy for you to change to a tube line which will help you to complete your journey. What were your reasons to take the awkward journey so far, if it was easier commute for most of your journey time, why are you then changing the route now?

Because the route I was taking was the most sensible route to my old client. There is a cheaper quicker and easier route to my new client.

[Old Greg]

Do you know how many pages of guidance there are on expenses This is my opinion which is based on 11 years experience running CU - there isn't an example I can give you which matches your situation exactly and HMR&C are not known for their clear guidance. At the end of the day, if you believe you are right, claim it

But I thought we were playing lawyers.

[rd409]

So you are saying that if the cost decreases then it is not a different workplace bit if it increases it is a different workplace (assuming it is not an artifice?)

No, what I am trying to understand is that why did you take an awkward route for 23 months, and now suddenly at the point when you cannot claim further; changing the route to more logical! I am not accusing you of anything, but as per the court, this would be fishy. The very first question you will be asked is why did you take 23 months to realise this was an awkward route? As per my experience with London Transport, if you are arriving at a terminus then it is very easy for you to change to a tube line which will help you to complete your journey. What were your reasons to take the awkward journey so far, if it was easier commute for most of your journey time, why are you then changing the route now?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So you assert. Show us the supporting authority for your assertion (guidance etc.), particularly with reference to distance and traveling time.

Do you know how many pages of guidance there are on expenses This is my opinion which is based on 11 years experience running CU - there isn't an example I can give you which matches your situation exactly and HMR&C are not known for their clear guidance. At the end of the day, if you believe you are right, claim it

[northernladuk]

No what I am saying is that the primary consideration under the 24 month rule is location - distance and travelling time. The cost is then a consideration once it has been established that the location in terms of travelling time or distance is significantly different.

And when they do consider the cost I don't think they will see £12 a day as significant.

[northernladuk]

What if, in the bridge work example, the employee had moved to the nearer side, and saved an hour on his journey - is that still claimable?

I believe it is yes. He has no other option and the route has change significantly. Doesn't matter if it is less or more. No where in the documentation does it mention shorter... just significantly.

[mudskipper]

I think she hangs it off the tube stop example (a few more stops not adding much time). You can equally well use the bridge work example especially as 6 miles across London without a direct tube line can add 1 hour to your journey time.

What if, in the bridge work example, the employee had moved to the nearer side, and saved an hour on his journey - is that still claimable?