24 month confusion

[Acme Thunderer]

The OP mentioned 2 End client sites, one in Scotland, one in South East England. The Scotland one is for 3-4 days a week and would be disallowed due to the 24 month rule. However the trips to the South East England office for a few days a quarter would still be allowed as the time spent there is less than 40%. So it still qualifies as a temporary place of work.

[radish2008]

24 month & 40%

So If I worked for Client at their offices for 6 months, then WFH for 18months, with travel to the office once a month, when I pass the 24 month mark I could still claim the cost of travel going forward ?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted over this rule ? Can't find anything on the internet about successful prosecutions ?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

So If I worked for Client at their offices for 6 months, then WFH for 18months, with travel to the office once a month, when I pass the 24 month mark I could still claim the cost of travel going forward ?

Yes, because at the point you start going back to the client site you would have spent less than 40% of your time there in the previous 24 months and it will remain that way if you don't spend more than 2 days a week on site.

[Lance]

Yes, because at the point you start going back to the client site you would have spent less than 40% of your time there in the previous 24 months and it will remain that way if you don't spend more than 2 days a week on site.

I've known people hastily go back over their expense claims to delete a load of travel and hotels to get it below 40% on site. That is fraudulent of course and not to be encouraged.

[Acme Thunderer]

So If I worked for Client at their offices for 6 months, then WFH for 18months, with travel to the office once a month, when I pass the 24 month mark I could still claim the cost of travel going forward ?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted over this rule ? Can't find anything on the internet about successful prosecutions ?

I believe you are entitled to do this

[northernladuk]

So If I worked for Client at their offices for 6 months, then WFH for 18months, with travel to the office once a month, when I pass the 24 month mark I could still claim the cost of travel going forward ?

Yes because you haven't been at that site for 40% of the time so fails to be a permanent workplace. Tons of interesting examples on the Gov website if you want to have a look.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted over this rule ? Can't find anything on the internet about successful prosecutions ?

It's a tax issue so I can't believe any would go to court because the sheer cost of it. HMRC will investigate, they'll push for payment, the person will fold if HMRC's argument is clear, they'll argue if they don't and I guess someone will cave before court gets involved.

HMRC don't comment on individual tax cases so you'll struggle to find anything. I'd take a guess that a vast majority of people who have ignored a pretty simple rule (in most cases) just pay up quietly. I'd expect HMIT has ripped them a new one going through their figures with a fine toothed comb as well so the individual won't be doing it again

[malvolio]

Yes because you haven't been at that site for 40% of the time so fails to be a permanent workplace. Tons of interesting examples on the Gov website if you want to have a look.



It's a tax issue so I can't believe any would go to court because the sheer cost of it. HMRC will investigate, they'll push for payment, the person will fold if HMRC's argument is clear, they'll argue if they don't and I guess someone will cave before court gets involved.

HMRC don't comment on individual tax cases so you'll struggle to find anything. I'd take a guess that a vast majority of people who have ignored a pretty simple rule (in most cases) just pay up quietly. I'd expect HMIT has ripped them a new one going through their figures with a fine toothed comb as well so the individual won't be doing it again

It's a law, not a rule. And yes, I know of many people who have been disallowed expense claims and taken it to tribunal to get a final ruling, some of which were lost.

Makes you wonder why we put that sticky up, doesn't it...

[Contreras]

Well, quite. Being inside IR35 would save the debate but still leave the option of the client picking up the tab for expenses. It's certainly a conversation to have with the client - something along the lines of "my working practices have changed and it appears I will now be under IR35 as part of my new contract. As such, I can no longer claim expenses; would you be willing to cover all my travel and accommodation costs?"

It doesn't matter who pays for the expense or how - personally, by YourCo, or by ClientCo - the same rules apply. At least that's how it used to be with P11D (disclaimer: I haven't checked recently, and yes it was widely ignored). Also, unless I am missing the point being made, IR35 has no bearing on that.

[psychocandy]

None of those expenses are claimable. Larger consultancies are very careful not to keep the same people in remote locations beyond 2 years for that reason.

Consultancy I currently contract at give the permies a pay rise to cover the loss when they can no longer claim expenses..... Of course, costs them money....

[northernladuk]

Consultancy I currently contract at give the permies a pay rise to cover the loss when they can no longer claim expenses..... Of course, costs them money....

What do you mean permies can no longer claim expenses? That doesn't make sense.