• 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!

Umbrella travel expenses - one-off trip near client site for 100% wfh contract

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    So the problem is just Paystream not wanting to step out of the ordinary and process this travel? Sounds like you need to get on the phone to them explain everything again and if the drone on the end of the phone isn't helping escalate the issue. Get the agreement in writing and then just send them that everytime they play silly buggers?
    No the problem seems to be that the OP is visiting end client's HQ next week and that could be an issue for Paystream because it looks like a commute to work (which boils down to the interpretation of HMRC's rules for travel expenses for Umbrella firms)

    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by eek View Post

      No the problem seems to be that the OP is visiting end client's HQ next week and that could be an issue for Paystream because it looks like a commute to work (which boils down to the interpretation of HMRC's rules for travel expenses for Umbrella firms)
      Yeah but I thought we cleared that up that it's clear in his contract the trip isn't commuting. They have a copy of his contract, he points that out to them, someone that knows what they are talking about there agrees it isn't in a mail and he's got his evidence every time they try fobbing him off?
      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

      Comment


        #13
        Hi both - yes this is it. It's the fact it's the client's HQ and the address of the employment company that ultimately pays the agency.

        Since my OP I've started going through it with them again (at this point I'm only updating this thread in case it's of use to future people and out of interest for anyone who's already read/ contributed).

        HMRC's rules seem to stipulate that even for remote workers (and this would've been mostly pre-pandemic rules/ guidance) it's very unusual for a journey from home to a 'base office' to be allowable expense even for fully remote workers. The employment manual gives loads of worked examples of different scenarios and they generally rule out expenses attracting tax relief. I know it seems simple to us (my permanent workplace is my home address, on the occasional reasons I need to go elsewhere I get expenses and associated tax relief on them for that trip) HMRC has clearly, in the past at least, seen work from home contracts as a bit of a loophole that could be exploited. And in some circumstances it would be.

        The short-term/ temporary changes in working environment triggered by COVID led to a lot of people working from home on a temporary basis albeit longer term than they might have thought when it started. Cleary HMRC made concessions on things like working from home allowance etc to help cover this. But now we're moving into a world where although many people have 'returned to the office', in reality far more people will work hybrid (which will throw up its own issues) and yet more will work fully remote and genuinely not, in the usual course of events, have any need to go into an office. It's not like they'll be attending once a week, or even once a month for a team meeting. It'll be 'rarer than hen's teeth and only for a specific (and crucially temporary) purpose - e.g. laptop's died and it can't be fixed remotely, for example. I don't think HMRC have really updated for this and they likely won't for ages. I've seen a few articles from accountants online who are just starting to think about it and warning about the pitfalls for employers if they don't think this through before moving to hybrid working.

        But current HMRC guidance doesn't easily cover this scenario, probably because pre-pandemic it wasn't that common. Examples cover e.g. working from home 4 days a week but from the office one day a week. This is an interesting one because I think that example supports the principles we're talking about. In it, person X has a contract in which they work from home Mon-Thu and in the office on Friday. They aren't allowed to claim expenses for the 'ordinary commute' to the office on a Friday. But - this is interesting to me - if the company requests them to attend the office on a Thursday, THEN they can claim expenses and get tax relief on them because contractually and in practice, Thursday's trip is not their ordinary commute even though it's the same journey. It's a quirky situation but you can see the logic.

        Generally though HMRC says you can't have your hone as your permanent workplace unless your need to work from home is because of the needs of the job and it can't be done elsewhere (they give an example of a worker who socialises support dogs for disabled people and because they need socialising in a home environment, the work must by definition be done at home. Clearly this is not the case for my desk job, it can be done anywhere - that's the whole point).

        But there's effectively a 'hole' in HMRC's examples which is my exact situation - this is why I was posting and hoping somebody else had leaned into it previously. It is genuinely the case that I work from home and have had no reason to 'go into an office'. I don't have a desk anywhere. My 'line manager' (hiring manager who signs off my timesheets) is in Boston, USA and I work with people all over the world (including some people based in Head Office but the majority not). HMRC does not consider this possibility at all, they just assume that remote working, even for people on a fully remote contract, is some kind of concessionary arrangement for the company 'letting you do it' so that if you come into the office even occasionally you aren't entitled to expenses because it's your 'ordinary commute'.

        However as far as I can see, the legislation and guidance doesn't definitively say your home definitely CANNOT be considered your permanent workplace, it's just 'unlikely'. And I think I am in that 'unlikely' situation which Paystream's processes don't cope with.

        Obviously Paystream's process has to validate all of this somehow. And how they appear to choose to do it is:

        If the place you're staying and trying to claim on expenses is either:

        * in or close to the postcode of your 'main site' (in this case they're counting my 'main site' as an office I've never been to for this contract, the head office in NotLondon) OR
        * in or close to where your 'manager' works from

        ... then it's an 'ordinary commute' and you're not liable to expenses. Simple rule to cover more complex legislation and to be fair, it probably works in the majority of cases.

        At this stage it looks like I'm going to have to get my hiring manager to write an email confirming she's in the USA... and then if I push the point hard about my work from home contract PLUS hiring manager is in the US, then the fact I have to attend meetings at the NotLondon head office might actually be OK from their perspective, and they'll let it through. Or maybe not.

        It's very frustrating. I expect next week's travel & subsistence for 3 nights in a hotel, meals and transport to be about £800, so if I get taxed on it, I'll only actually get back about half that. In the grand scheme of things I'll suck it up this once as there are some quite key meetings I'd like to attend in person, but it rankles! and although I'm not expecting this to happen often (see: I really am based at home!) I do think it'll likely happen a couple more times in the next 6 6-12 months (which is how long I'm expecting to be there). Nobody gives away £1k plus without some kind of a fight!

        The annoying thing is I really don't think my situation is what HMRC's guidance is intended to 'trap'.

        Comment


          #14
          I will say that I don’t see anyway that won’t result in a lot disappearing in tax because as HMRC admit they are being a whole lot awkward about home bases post Covid (well actually post April 2016 for umbrella firms).
          merely at clientco for the entertainment

          Comment


            #15
            It’s also probably worth saying that the Exchequer Solutions tribunal will be playing on umbrella firms minds see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/...paid-tax?amp=1

            anything that looks like a regular commute will be a no no for the near future
            merely at clientco for the entertainment

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by eek View Post
              It’s also probably worth saying that the Exchequer Solutions tribunal will be playing on umbrella firms minds see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/...paid-tax?amp=1

              anything that looks like a regular commute will be a no no for the near future
              Which is going to make it even more difficult for the OP (if it isn't already) to convince the umbrella it's a legitimate business trip and not a commute. They'll throw the baby out with the bathwater and just refuse to deal with any expenses as they are in this case I guess. So even business trips are likely to be a no no as well.
              'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

              Comment


                #17
                Only one group will soon be able to claim tax-free travel and subsistence - MPs

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by eek View Post
                  It’s also probably worth saying that the Exchequer Solutions tribunal will be playing on umbrella firms minds see https://www.computerweekly.com/news/...paid-tax?amp=1

                  anything that looks like a regular commute will be a no no for the near future
                  Wow. That's some ruling. I guess it relates to a period when people were doing exactly what I'm *not* doing, but still. As you say, it'll be affecting umbrellas' attitude to risk. As far as I've seen so far, Paystream is very slick, efficient and attempts to be 'whiter than white' which generally is good. It's just incredibly frustrating that this scenario is problematic for me and will cost me money. I just can't believe even anyone working for HMRC would look at my situation and think I'm abusing expenses!

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Given that it's on my mind and this seems an appropriate thread to put down thoughts

                    The clause that would have been used to cover your journey to the office comes from EIM32132 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: fixed term appointments and agency workers: fixed term appointments: site-based workers - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

                    But what is significant in the Exchequer Solutions ruling (that no "commentary" I've seen has picked up on) is that because there is no Mutuality of Obligation between the umbrella and the worker (because workers weren't paid when between paid assignments) each contract is individual which means there will be 1 office that you are based at even if you aren't there.

                    Which in your case is their head office (and for me when I was at Microsoft was Reading).

                    I say "Commentary" because all I've seen so far is point scoring...
                    merely at clientco for the entertainment

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by eek View Post
                      Given that it's on my mind and this seems an appropriate thread to put down thoughts

                      The clause that would have been used to cover your journey to the office comes from EIM32132 - Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: fixed term appointments and agency workers: fixed term appointments: site-based workers - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

                      But what is significant in the Exchequer Solutions ruling (that no "commentary" I've seen has picked up on) is that because there is no Mutuality of Obligation between the umbrella and the worker (because workers weren't paid when between paid assignments) each contract is individual which means there will be 1 office that you are based at even if you aren't there.

                      Which in your case is their head office (and for me when I was at Microsoft was Reading).

                      I say "Commentary" because all I've seen so far is point scoring...
                      I can see the point you're making on that judgement. However I think you've given me a link which (in my view...) helps with the discussion I'm trying to have, per my OP.

                      "But a site will also be a permanent workplace if it is reasonable to assume that the employee will work at that site for all or almost all of the period for which they are likely to hold that employment, , see EIM32125."

                      ...and then EIM 32125 says:

                      "A period of attendance at a workplace for a limited duration does not make that place a temporary workplace if the employee attends in the course of a period of continuous work (see EIM32080) that can be expected to last for all, or almost all, of the period for which he or she is likely to hold, or continue to hold, that employment. In these cases the 24 month rule (see EIM32080) is overridden and the workplace is a permanent workplace.

                      The legislation does not define almost all of the period of the employment. *You should not normally challenge relief under this paragraph where the likely duration of work at a workplace is less than 80% of the likely duration of the employment*."

                      Emboldening is mine. I'm not attending this !"£$ing workplace for anywhere near approaching 80% of the employment! I'm working from home, have been for 14+ months and in that time I've been to London for a total of 5 or 6s and NotLondon head office will be for 3!

                      I wonder if this will help me...

                      Thanks for the food for thought! I have read a lot of the EIMs but hadn't seen this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X