First and only assignment - Subsistence

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

stek, yes I'm a noob but I can spot a badly formulated question when I see one. You'll notice that I'm not disputing the facts (if you read my first post and my title).

What do you mean by "might cost u thousands"? I'm not talking about making claims in the future. Unfortunately these claims have already been made.

If you think that the question was badly formulated then I suggest you refer your complaint to HMR&C as they were the ones who came up with the wording.

HTH

[Wanderer]

I was asked what my "intention" was and I indeed answered that my intention was indeed to work for several different clients and this wouldn't be my first and only assignment (I'm assuming that they meant first and only client as these were 4 separate contracts). This "intention" question was indeed incredibly misleading as I could not predict ahead of time whether I would find assignments with other clients.

No, it's not misleading, the question should be taken at face value. A reasonable person could not have been certain that it would turn out the way it did so you answered the question as best you could given the information you had at the time. In hindsight, it turns out that it didn't work that way but crucially you had no way of predicting this at the time and it was not your intention for it to turn out this way so the expenses claims stand. When you eventually find out that your answer to the question was wrong, you must stop claiming immediately.

Will the umbrella company now try to recoup the tax or ask HMRC to do so?

From what I've seen, NO they won't.

If you go and confess to them that your intention all along was to work for one client for > 24 months and that would be your only contract then they might do. If you go and talk to them and wring your hands about the whole thing then they might do.

Those are your options. Just shut your mouth and keep the money, nothing will ever come of it. OR go and make a big fuss about it and they will ask you to pay the money back.

[sammywammy]

stek, yes I'm a noob but I can spot a badly formulated question when I see one. You'll notice that I'm not disputing the facts (if you read my first post and my title).

What do you mean by "might cost u thousands"? I'm not talking about making claims in the future. Unfortunately these claims have already been made.

[stek]

Come on Sammywammy look at the facts and consider the opinions, you are coming across as a total noob hooked on a principle that might cost u thousands.

Forget and move on.

[malvolio]

In any case, my gripe with the word "intend" is irrelevant here as the umbrella company I use, did not phrase the question that way (I was looking at Nasa consulting where, in my opinion, the statement "This is my first assignment and I intend to work more than one assignment through Nasa Umbrella" is not the same as stating "This will not be my first and only assignment". I do not doubt that there are people who will interpret the two statements in the same way but it would be incorrect to do so)
http://www.nasaconsulting.com/media/...rm%20_web_.pdf

In the case of Parasol, the statement used has another source of semantic confusion by using "or".
Please confirm that your current assignment is less than 24 months or is not your first & only assignment with Parasol

I can indeed confirm that the assignment lasted less than 24 months but cannot confirm the second part but due to the logical "or", I have thus confirmed the full statement. You were suggesting that they may have some dispensation and I will talk to the umbrella regarding this. I am hoping that they indeed meant to use "or" there and not "and".

I can't make it any clearer, and I really can't be arsed to argue the point any further. You're wrong, they're right, you need to sort it out.

[sammywammy]

Jeez, you know nothing but insist on arguing with those that do.

The intention to have multiple engagements was why the umbrella let you claim expenses. You haven't done multiple engagements, therefore you are not entitled to claim for travel to a "temporary" place of work because you don't have one; you have one permanent place of work, which is your client's location. To have a temporary place of work you need a real permanent one to base it on. In my case, it's my company location since I do substantive work here. In your case you need a series of discrete locations.

Beginning to make sense yet?

You need to sort out your tax position on the next SAR. And for that, you need to talk to your umbrella. You're paying them to manage you affairs, so damned well use them.

In any case, my gripe with the word "intend" is irrelevant here as the umbrella company I use, did not phrase the question that way (I was looking at Nasa consulting where, in my opinion, the statement "This is my first assignment and I intend to work more than one assignment through Nasa Umbrella" is not the same as stating "This will not be my first and only assignment". I do not doubt that there are people who will interpret the two statements in the same way but it would be incorrect to do so)
http://www.nasaconsulting.com/media/...rm%20_web_.pdf

In the case of Parasol, the statement used has another source of semantic confusion by using "or".
Please confirm that your current assignment is less than 24 months or is not your first & only assignment with Parasol

I can indeed confirm that the assignment lasted less than 24 months but cannot confirm the second part but due to the logical "or", I have thus confirmed the full statement. You were suggesting that they may have some dispensation and I will talk to the umbrella regarding this. I am hoping that they indeed meant to use "or" there and not "and".

[malvolio]

Of course it's misleading. You may also want to check the definition of "intention" if you cannot understand my point.

My plan was to do several assignments at several clients. If the plan does not pan out that way, then that changes nothing about my original intention or do you somehow disagree with that point?

However, I see nothing on the HMRC site that suggests that it's the "intention" that matters hence the point about the question being misleading. Again, anything you disagree with here?

malvolio has suggested that I contact my umbrella company which I probably will have to when I resign, although if there is no such dispensation, my answer to the original question is irrelevant.

Jeez, you know nothing but insist on arguing with those that do.

The intention to have multiple engagements was why the umbrella let you claim expenses. You haven't done multiple engagements, therefore you are not entitled to claim for travel to a "temporary" place of work because you don't have one; you have one permanent place of work, which is your client's location. To have a temporary place of work you need a real permanent one to base it on. In my case, it's my company location since I do substantive work here. In your case you need a series of discrete locations.

Beginning to make sense yet?

You need to sort out your tax position on the next SAR. And for that, you need to talk to your umbrella. You're paying them to manage you affairs, so damned well use them.

[sammywammy]

It's not misleading - look up the definition of "intention".

Good thing you are going permie then you can blame management if plans don't go as intended.

Of course it's misleading. You may also want to check the definition of "intention" if you cannot understand my point.

My plan was to do several assignments at several clients. If the plan does not pan out that way, then that changes nothing about my original intention or do you somehow disagree with that point?

However, I see nothing on the HMRC site that suggests that it's the "intention" that matters hence the point about the question being misleading. Again, anything you disagree with here?

malvolio has suggested that I contact my umbrella company which I probably will have to when I resign, although if there is no such dispensation, my answer to the original question is irrelevant.

[SueEllen]

This "intention" question was indeed incredibly misleading as I could not predict ahead of time whether I would find assignments with other clients.

It's not misleading - look up the definition of "intention".

Good thing you are going permie then you can blame management if plans don't go as intended.

[malvolio]

Are you there now? Then it was clearly temporary.

Not that simple. For umbrella company users, the rules are basically that a workplace is only temporary once you've been to at least two of them. that declaration is to cover this off, you intetnion ios to have multiple assignments. If, however, you only have one, strictly speaking that would have been a permanent workplace (you don't have your own, and you don't work at the umbrella's premises so it has to be) and the travel expenses should be retrospectively disallowed by declaring them as BIKs on the next P11D.

Scale rate dispensations and other local umbrella rules may override that, of course, so the OP needs to talk to the umbrella company again...

[v8gaz]

Are you there now? Then it was clearly temporary.

[sammywammy]

I worked for a client initially on a 6-month contract that then got renewed 3 times. This was my first contract role. I am now returning to a permanent role which suggests that my temporary place of work (where I claimed travel and food expenses, for which I had receipts) was my permanent one or at least, that's what I understand from the umbrella company's website when I signed up. I was asked what my "intention" was and I indeed answered that my intention was indeed to work for several different clients and this wouldn't be my first and only assignment (I'm assuming that they meant first and only client as these were 4 separate contracts). This "intention" question was indeed incredibly misleading as I could not predict ahead of time whether I would find assignments with other clients.

Will the umbrella company now try to recoup the tax or ask HMRC to do so?