Reply to: Returning to a contract after three months ??

[NickFitz]

To what resolution does this requirement go down to? London is a big (scary) place.

Here's the HMRC handbook's bit on it, including links to all the other bits of the handbook that have a bearing on it, and example scenarios that have probably been carefully crafted to allow them to argue in all cases that they don't apply.

Dolgellau gets a mention though. Nice countryside round there

[kingcook]

When I was using an LLP I was assured the 24 month rule didn't apply to fee earners in a partnership, never tested the theory tho!

I'll do an LLP with queencook. She will be sat at home for 50% of the time, i'll be commuting to client co for the other 50% of the time.

Wish me luck!

[SueEllen]

Sounds very plausible.

So if I stay in lodgings during the week, a mile from clientco #1, and then start at clientco #2's offices a mile the opposite side of my lodgings (clientco #2 having taken over clientco #1), then it's a new journey

A bit of common sense needs to be applied.

A mile especially in an urban area is a walkable distance so it is essentially the same journey.

[stek]

Returning to a contract after three months ??

When I was using an LLP I was assured the 24 month rule didn't apply to fee earners in a partnership, never tested the theory tho!

[OwlHoot]

This is HMRC we're talking about, who the f*** knows? Supposedly, if you're commuting from, for example, Edinburgh down to London, and then start a new contract in a different part of London, that wouldn't count as a different location as the journey would be largely the same. However, if you're based in London, that same change of location could be enough because it would be a completely different journey.

Don't know how true this is though.

Sounds very plausible.

So if I stay in lodgings during the week, a mile from clientco #1, and then start at clientco #2's offices a mile the opposite side of my lodgings (clientco #2 having taken over clientco #1), then it's a new journey

[BolshieBastard]

This is so stupid it effectively rules me out of working in London for two years as it costs my company 1200 to get me there.

I suppose it would be classed as a BIK if my company still paid for my travel.

I bet if i were to work in Wolverhapton for two years I could claim travel to Birmnigham (10 miles apart).

Nope, its not stopping you working anywhere, you're attitude of wanting open ended tax free travel, is.

I worked past the 2 year rule at one client because the other terms and conditions were more favourable (not having to work silly hours, could work a 4 day week etc).

You can continue to claim travel expense beyond the 2 years but, it efectively becomes a BIK so you have to pay some tax on it. In other words, instead of you being able to claim say £1200 a year for travel without paying tax on it, you will now have to pay some tax on it.

Why do people think they have to stop working somewhere because they have to pay some tax on the concession?

[u9k82]

This is so stupid it effectively rules me out of working in London for two years as it costs my company 1200 to get me there.

I suppose it would be classed as a BIK if my company still paid for my travel.

I bet if i were to work in Wolverhapton for two years I could claim travel to Birmnigham (10 miles apart).

[Bunk]

To what resolution does this requirement go down to? London is a big (scary) place.

This is HMRC we're talking about, who the f*** knows? Supposedly, if you're commuting from, for example, Edinburgh down to London, and then start a new contract in a different part of London, that wouldn't count as a different location as the journey would be largely the same. However, if you're based in London, that same change of location could be enough because it would be a completely different journey.

Don't know how true this is though.

[TheFaQQer]

If someone worked for accenture based in reading they would not stop claiming expenses back from accenture after working in the city for two years ?

Typically, they keep claiming the expenses from their employer. That then becomes a taxable benefit, and if they are lucky then the company will make up that difference for them.

That's what the consultancy I worked for did - we kept claiming, and the company made sure that we weren't out of pocket. Alternatively, they find someone else who can do the work and you move on to another location.

[TheFaQQer]

To what resolution does this requirement go down to? London is a big (scary) place.

The legislation just says that the journeys need to be "significantly different" without going into much more detail.

I think that I'd also factor in where you are coming from - if you are heading from Manchester to London, then pretty much anywhere in London counts as the same location. If you are coming from central London, then you would be able to argue that the east end and up west (to use those geographic locations specified by Eastenders) are different locations.

[u9k82]

Yes because you're commute is into London. Think about it a permie chooses to commute into London on a daily basis after two years in a contract you are simply choosing to do the same.

I run a business I would chose not to commute to London but that is where the work is ?!

If someone worked for accenture based in reading they would not stop claiming expenses back from accenture after working in the city for two years ?

[SupremeSpod]

Yes because you're commute is into London. Think about it a permie chooses to commute into London on a daily basis after two years in a contract you are simply choosing to do the same.

To what resolution does this requirement go down to? London is a big (scary) place.

[eek]

so someone who undertakes consecutive contracts with different clients in London and is based outside london has to stop claiming expenses after 2 years ?

seems a little silly

mind you .... HMRC.....makes sense

Yes because you're commute is into London. Think about it a permie chooses to commute into London on a daily basis after two years in a contract you are simply choosing to do the same.

[u9k82]

so someone who undertakes consecutive contracts with different clients in London and is based outside london has to stop claiming expenses after 2 years ?

seems a little silly

mind you .... HMRC.....makes sense

[eek]

Thanks for the advice its clearer now.

So the fact i worked in a different geographic location for three months doesnt change much ?!

Also Even though The registered location of the contract in question has always been London (2 years) I have actually been based all over the country in terms of actual location probably spending 2 days a week in london.

The rule is 40% of your time over the last two years. The fact you only worked 2 days a week in London may be to your advantage because if that contains you will be under that 40% rule.

If its a 3 month contract 100% in London I think you'll find you're screwed tho.