Reply to: Does a gap between contracts reset 24 month rule?

[gadgetman]

Its only fair

[SueEllen]

Just read this and now I completely understand the rules but it is the biggest load of cobblers I've ever seen. What on earth is the logic behind this?

.

HMRC - All your money belongs to us

[gadgetman]

Slip of the finger...

s/employer/client/g

Ah - the joys of contracting...



careful with your terminology!!!

[ASB]

I don't think even the HMRC could argue that a 350 mile trip up the A30/M6 is the same journey as a 400 mile journey up the M42/M1/M18/A1(M)

Theoretically they could if they felt so inclined, the legislations is written that way.

In practice they regard your starting point as broadly irrelevant in ascertaining whether it is a substantial change or not. This is in effect a concession by HMRC.

[ratewhore]

Just read this and now I completely understand the rules but it is the biggest load of cobblers I've ever seen. What on earth is the logic behind this?

Ah - the joys of contracting...

Surely working at one contract (say in London) for 18 months and then finding another contract for a different period with a different employer and different terms and conditions which also happened to be in London ought to constitute a different 'temporary workplace'. Of course logic plays very little part in these things...

careful with your terminology!!!

[r0bly0ns]

I think HMRC would argue that black is white and white is black (and get themselves killed on the next zebra crossing), if they thought they had the slightest a chance of legally extracting more tax. After all, the legal fees come out of tax money.

Now that would make things simpler!

[gadgetman]

Just read this and now I completely understand the rules but it is the biggest load of cobblers I've ever seen. What on earth is the logic behind this?

Surely working at one contract (say in London) for 18 months and then finding another contract for a different period with a different employer and different terms and conditions which also happened to be in London ought to constitute a different 'temporary workplace'. Of course logic plays very little part in these things...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32280.htm

[NotAllThere]

I think HMRC would argue that black is white and white is black (and get themselves killed on the next zebra crossing), if they thought they had the slightest a chance of legally extracting more tax. After all, the legal fees come out of tax money.

[r0bly0ns]

Ah, but what if he lives in Penzance? Then it could be considered to be substantially the same journey.

( But I think HMRC wouldn't argue that one. )

I don't think even the HMRC could argue that a 350 mile trip up the A30/M6 is the same journey as a 400 mile journey up the M42/M1/M18/A1(M)

[NotAllThere]

2 Completely different locations in 2 different counties!


You are well in the clear

Ah, but what if he lives in Penzance? Then it could be considered to be substantially the same journey.

( But I think HMRC wouldn't argue that one. )

[Chugnut]

I don't think anything is "set in stone" but, no you are not necessarily "in the clear". I understand that (for example) the the City of London is one location. By the same token I was in Manchester with a couple of different firms. I'm now avoiding Manchester for a while unless I get a real good rate. The way I see it, Manchester is one location. Liverpool or Chester would be another so I could claim again. HTH.

This whole area is dependant upon one's definition of "significant".

For example, Canary Wharf and the City would be considered the same location if they do not modify your usual journey by a significant amount. So if you usually just use the Jubilee line to London Bridge for your City contract for two years and then you get a contract in the Docklands, you couldn't claim for the Docklands.

Since I get a mainline train from Kent to Cannon Street and I don't need the tube, I would be able to claim since it means another 20 minutes on my journey plus the cost of an Oyster card.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32280.htm

[r0bly0ns]

2 Completely different locations in 2 different counties!


You are well in the clear

[bunting]

I think, bearing any catastrophe, I would be in the clear based on all your comments.
The contract coming to an end is in York
The new contract is in Widnes

My concern is that it is for the same company and the combined contracts would be over 2 years.
I will be getting a decent (40%) increase to drive to Widnes from Leeds every day, so happy to do it, but want to claim the mileage, and will do it under the contract rate, BUT if caught by 24 mths rule, will up my request by 25 quid a day to cover travelling.

Cheers

[moorfield]

Cheers for the quick reply Fred,

I have been led to believe that at the moment that you know the contract will go beyond 24 months, that is the point that you must stop claiming expense.

What happens if you buy (and expense) your annual season ticket the day before you "know" you are going to go beyond 24 mths ?

[Fred Bloggs]

The journey to the clientCo's client's site must be different enought to count as a different journey. Therefore if it's in the next street to the clientCo then the 24 month rule still comes into play however if it's in a different part of town your in the clear.

I don't think anything is "set in stone" but, no you are not necessarily "in the clear". I understand that (for example) the the City of London is one location. By the same token I was in Manchester with a couple of different firms. I'm now avoiding Manchester for a while unless I get a real good rate. The way I see it, Manchester is one location. Liverpool or Chester would be another so I could claim again. HTH.