Hi
Would be great if someone could clear up my understanding of this rule for the following scenario:
A company performs an ongoing assignment for a client under the following circumstances:
1. Meetings on single client site which he attends usually more than 40% of the time (SITE A)
2. Very Occasional meetings (negligible %, maybe 3/4 times per year) on separate geographically substantially different site (SITE B)
3. Mileage claimed on all the above
If he then starts a new assignment with same client where situation is reversed:
ie
3. Meetings on single client site which he attends usually more than 40% of the time (SITE B this time)
4. Very Occasional meetings (negligible %) on separate geographically substantially different site (now SITE A)
If this is likely to bring the total period of the assignment with that client to more than 24 months, how does this stand for ongoing mileage expenses?
Will the 24 month rule be reset when the new assignment starts at site B, given that the company has claimed the odd very negligible travel expense to site B in the past?
Would be great if someone could clear up my understanding of this rule for the following scenario:
A company performs an ongoing assignment for a client under the following circumstances:
1. Meetings on single client site which he attends usually more than 40% of the time (SITE A)
2. Very Occasional meetings (negligible %, maybe 3/4 times per year) on separate geographically substantially different site (SITE B)
3. Mileage claimed on all the above
If he then starts a new assignment with same client where situation is reversed:
ie
3. Meetings on single client site which he attends usually more than 40% of the time (SITE B this time)
4. Very Occasional meetings (negligible %) on separate geographically substantially different site (now SITE A)
If this is likely to bring the total period of the assignment with that client to more than 24 months, how does this stand for ongoing mileage expenses?
Will the 24 month rule be reset when the new assignment starts at site B, given that the company has claimed the odd very negligible travel expense to site B in the past?
Comment