40% / 24 Month rule scenario

[stek]

You're quite right, I have got it the wrong way round...should really have thought more about what WFH meant!

Are you sure you are cut out to be an Accountant?

[Craig at Nixon Williams]

But they weren't - they did two years at 60% on site

You're quite right, I have got it the wrong way round...should really have thought more about what WFH meant!

[TheFaQQer]

If the OP was only claiming 2 days per week, then the time at that location would have been exactly 40% in the 2 year period. If it is 40% or less then you can claim travel to that site forever so they would have been fine.

But they weren't - they did two years at 60% on site:

Been with client now for 24 months (based in one location, although 2 days per week WFH during that time).

They are now looking at three days from home, two days on site:

If I end up WFH 3 days a week from the start of the new contract (i.e. only 2 days in site - which is less than 40% in the temporary workplace), would this be allowable in terms of expense claims, or does the rolling window issue apply here?

Which is irrelevant at the moment - they are already at 60%, so if they cut down to 40% there is no way that they can EVER get below 40%.

[Craig at Nixon Williams]

It was always due to end after 24 months? Was it a 24 month contract you signed?

Was it exactly 24 months, or 24 months and a couple of days?

If so, you shouldn't have claimed any expenses from Day 1.

If the OP was only claiming 2 days per week, then the time at that location would have been exactly 40% in the 2 year period. If it is 40% or less then you can claim travel to that site forever so they would have been fine.

The problem that the OP now has is that it will be 3 days (60%) at that same site which will immediately take the average to more than 40% and therefore they cannot continue to claim. If the extension meant that they only had to attend that site 40% of the time then that would still be claimable.

[jmo21]

Been with client now for 24 months (based in one location, although 2 days per week WFH during that time). This means that the 'temporary workplace' exceeds the 40% rule, as well as obviously now hitting the 24 month window (Contract was always due to end with client at the 24 month period, so no issues with claiming expenses up to the close of that gig).

It was always due to end after 24 months? Was it a 24 month contract you signed?

Was it exactly 24 months, or 24 months and a couple of days?

If so, you shouldn't have claimed any expenses from Day 1.

[piningforthefjords]

Thanks for the advice, pretty much what I expected TBH

[eek]

No because it would 60%*18+40%*6 would still be over 40% of that is being generous in the calculations....

In fact 60%*18 is over the limit so there is nothing you can do to get below 40%

[Bunk]

The rolling window applies. So you would actually be over 40% until you've been there another 2 years.

[piningforthefjords]

I have read through all the posts I can see regarding the 24 month and 40% rule, but wondered if anyone had any experience of the following scenario (bear with me, its a bit of a marathon to explain):

Been with client now for 24 months (based in one location, although 2 days per week WFH during that time). This means that the 'temporary workplace' exceeds the 40% rule, as well as obviously now hitting the 24 month window (Contract was always due to end with client at the 24 month period, so no issues with claiming expenses up to the close of that gig).

I am in the process of being offered an extension (6 months minimum) with a 3rd party (rather than existing client), based again at the same location, but this has come out of the blue. I fully understand the geographic location issue and this is not a question about that, more of an issue around the 40% time issue at one location.

So, question is as follows:

If I end up WFH 3 days a week from the start of the new contract (i.e. only 2 days in site - which is less than 40% in the temporary workplace), would this be allowable in terms of expense claims, or does the rolling window issue apply here?

Thanks in advance.