- 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!
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 "Claiming travel above amounts paid by employer on SA"
Collapse
-
You will need to look at location of work on the contractual arrangements too, and whether it becomes a "regular commute" or not?
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostA recent post just reminded me of something I need to look in to. This is for my other half's employment so slightly different to contracting but it's about claiming back on the SA so should be exactly the same as an inside gig.
We are waiting to find out but I believe her company pays her mileage under the 45p a mile rate so we can claim the difference back. Looking in to that.
She has to travel to University two days a week as it's a training type employment. Attendenance to uni is terms of the employment but she found out a few months in when her claim got refused that they won't pay mileage to uni, only for training courses. Could argue that with her employer but she doesn't want to get in to it with them. We think we can claim this from SA as it's mandatory to the job, it's just a policy decision so falls clearly in to travelling for work not re-imbursed by the client.
Anyone think otherwise?
The HMRC rules on this are complex and centre on the definitions of 'permanent workplace' and 'temporary workplace':- A permanent workplace is somewhere the employee attends regularly for the performance of their duties. Attendance is regular if it is frequent or follows a pattern, so that fortnightly travel, for example, is capable of being regarded as regular.
- A temporary workplace is somewhere the employee goes only to perform a task of limited duration or for a temporary purpose. Where an employee has spent, or is likely to spend, 40% or more of their working time at a particular workplace over a period of more than 24 months, HMRC will treat it as a permanent workplace rather than a temporary workplace.
If an employee works from home full-time, they can get tax relief on the unreimbursed travel costs of travelling to the office - provided that the trip is not undertaken regularly and HMRC accepts that the office is a temporary workplace. They can also get relief on the costs of travelling to another temporary workplace such as a client's premises.
Leave a comment:
-
Claiming travel above amounts paid by employer on SA
A recent post just reminded me of something I need to look in to. This is for my other half's employment so slightly different to contracting but it's about claiming back on the SA so should be exactly the same as an inside gig.
We are waiting to find out but I believe her company pays her mileage under the 45p a mile rate so we can claim the difference back. Looking in to that.
She has to travel to University two days a week as it's a training type employment. Attendenance to uni is terms of the employment but she found out a few months in when her claim got refused that they won't pay mileage to uni, only for training courses. Could argue that with her employer but she doesn't want to get in to it with them. We think we can claim this from SA as it's mandatory to the job, it's just a policy decision so falls clearly in to travelling for work not re-imbursed by the client.
Anyone think otherwise?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
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Today 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Yesterday 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
Leave a comment: