Banking should probably be the exception (i.e. the one where this is applied). If you're doing banking work, and all the banks are within a mile of each other, then you should know straight away that you need to move closer to that location. Whereas working 18 months for one client, and then by sheer blind luck getting another client that happens to be next door isn't something you could have ever predicted, so it doesn't seem fair to apply this rule.
Of course us permies don't get to claim anything, even on day one.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: 24 month rule: why 'location'?
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "24 month rule: why 'location'?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by kal View PostIf you were offered a 5 year contract then you can kiss goodbye to any travel expenses from day one... remember you have to stop claiming one you have a contract that takes you over the 24 months regardless...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Maslins View PostI accept that the expectation part of it is perhaps open to abuse...but again, if we gloss over that, the principle makes sense. If you get offered a 5 year contract starting now, and it's miles away, you should consider moving now, not waiting 23 months before making a move.
I can see arguments both ways, but I think current rules, whilst a little complex, make sense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JRCT View PostBut then, if that is the case, why is the rule not just "You can claim expenses for 24 months, but then that's it. You either move to the new location or you don't. Either way, you can't claim any travel expenses after 24 months"?
I can see arguments both ways, but I think current rules, whilst a little complex, make sense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JRCT View PostI've read the sticky and a few other posts and I understand the principles of the rule and the reasons that it's there.
What I don't understand is why the 'location' considered is geographical and not client based
If on the other hand you expect to be somewhere (say) 3 years, and the travel costs are really high, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect you to move closer to work.
To my mind the tax rules give leeway to those regularly working from different locations, but don't give leeway to those who have a long term long commute. Possibly they could argue it's fewer cars on the road/more space on crowded public transport.
If it was based on the client, you could commute to the same place for years on end, moving from one client to the one in the office next door every 18 months and always get relief. Nup, I think the current rules make more sense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JRCT View PostSorry, I hadn't seen that mentioned before and I was conscious not to just ask a question without looking fr the answer myself. I know there's been a lot of discussion about this.
But then, if that is the case, why is the rule not just "You can claim expenses for 24 months, but then that's it. You either move to the new location or you don't. Either way, you can't claim any travel expenses after 24 months"?
I hope no-one at HMRC reads that, they might not have thought of it before.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostHit the nail on the head and I am sure I mention this every time we discuss this rule so I am surprised the OP hasn't seen it mentioned before.
But then, if that is the case, why is the rule not just "You can claim expenses for 24 months, but then that's it. You either move to the new location or you don't. Either way, you can't claim any travel expenses after 24 months"?
I hope no-one at HMRC reads that, they might not have thought of it before.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ticktock View PostWhat it is achieving is allowing employees a little bit of respite if their employer moves to a new location, so that they have time to consider whether they would like to move closer to the new location or else leave their job and find another closer to home.
It was never intended for contractors, but it's a loophole that most, myself included, take advantage of.
Leave a comment:
-
What it is achieving is allowing employees a little bit of respite if their employer moves to a new location, so that they have time to consider whether they would like to move closer to the new location or else leave their job and find another closer to home.
It was never intended for contractors, but it's a loophole that most, myself included, take advantage of.
Leave a comment:
-
24 month rule: why 'location'?
I've read the sticky and a few other posts and I understand the principles of the rule and the reasons that it's there.
What I don't understand is why the 'location' considered is geographical and not client based.
If I, and another contractor work for Bank A for 22 months. We can each legitimately claim travel expenses.
Our contracts end and we both then get entirely independent contracts with new clients, for the next 12 months, nothing whatsoever to do with Bank A. Mine is 30 miles away in another town and his is 200 yards away from Bank A, in a financial district that has all of these banks in the same place (fairly common).
This means that I can continue to claim travel expenses as before, but he can't even though we've both done exactly the same thing and are in exactly the same situation.
I think I've understood this correctly, but I don't understand the point of it. What is it achieving?Last edited by JRCT; 26 March 2014, 16:33.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: