PDA

View Full Version : IPSE have sent an email out



eek
25th January 2017, 19:07
Public Sector contractor? Prepare for changes (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6595f3600b2961af5f6e068b3&id=c71ff21c7a)

Not bad but I don't think the advice to get new contract terms is anywhere near strong enough - I suspect everyone who remains in a contract after April to be targeted by HMRC and a new contract no matter how lovely it feels won't stop the initial letters going out...

LondonManc
25th January 2017, 19:30
The damning section:

"We requested that HMRC declare an amnesty on contracts which transit to the new tax arrangements in April. Unfortunately this request was refused."

Even if they could have qualified it with an amnesty on contracts that use the standard salary + dividends route then it would have been something. Commercial suicide for the public sector.

eek
25th January 2017, 19:35
The damning section:

"We requested that HMRC declare an amnesty on contracts which transit to the new tax arrangements in April. Unfortunately this request was refused."

Even if they could have qualified it with an amnesty on contracts that use the standard salary + dividends route then it would have been something. Commercial suicide for the public sector.

And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

LondonManc
25th January 2017, 19:40
And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc peoplebthe idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

Or that it's a major bargaining chip (for exemption). That said, most on the list probably won't know what it means anyway and will presume their agency will look after them.

teapot418
25th January 2017, 19:56
All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc peoplebthe idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

Where does it say they were surprised?

I don't think HMRC needed any prompting - you yourself have said you've known they've had the 'idea' for a long time.

difficulttimes
25th January 2017, 20:52
Thanks for sharing..I had to read it twice to properly digest it as it was quite a strongly worded email from an industry body.
I will be sharing it with my contractor buddies tomorrow. I've already let them know that I'm walking as I've got no faith that the PS end client will treat us fairly.

Once people read this everyone will be going. No-one would stay now.

Eek - I will walk away with my tail between my legs.

P.S I do wonder if IPSE have put the retrospective bit in there as they want people to vote with their feet so as such the public sector will come to a halt so people will finally realise the benefit that we bring and the realisation that there is no public services without the lone contractor.

Whorty
25th January 2017, 21:32
P.S I do wonder if IPSE have put the retrospective bit in there as they want people to vote with their feet so as such the public sector will come to a halt so people will finally realise the benefit that we bring and the realisation that there is no public services without the lone contractor.

/\ This ... a passive, aggressive approach.

eek
25th January 2017, 21:38
Thanks for sharing..I had to read it twice to properly digest it as it was quite a strongly worded email from an industry body.
I will be sharing it with my contractor buddies tomorrow. I've already let them know that I'm walking as I've got no faith that the PS end client will treat us fairly.

Once people read this everyone will be going. No-one would stay now.

Eek - I will walk away with my tail between my legs.

P.S I do wonder if IPSE have put the retrospective bit in there as they want people to vote with their feet so as such the public sector will come to a halt so people will finally realise the benefit that we bring and the realisation that there is no public services without the lone contractor.

No its because general sentiment has changed at IPSE from December when everyone was saying not a chance to now when they can see how things are going (especially since HMRC have outright refused to deny it).

The only thing I will highlight and I know that IPSE can't say it - you don't need a new contract for April onwards, you need a new contract via a new agency, probably at a new department before April. Going in February / March is fine as the retrospective period is minimal but if you've been there 6+ months the bill is going to be fairly large if HMRC come knocking...

teapot418
25th January 2017, 21:46
No its because general sentiment has changed at IPSE from December when everyone was saying not a chance to now when they can see how things are going (especially since HMRC have outright refused to deny it).

I honestly don't remember seeing that from IPSE - can you point me at a link? I remember a strongly worded post on their forum from the boss giving his personal opinion (I won't repeat here because of their forum Ts&Cs), but no official comment on retrospection. I can't see why they would have ruled it out unless HMRC confirmed an amnesty, which realistically was never likely to happen.

eek
25th January 2017, 21:49
I honestly don't remember seeing that from IPSE - can you point me at a link? I remember a strongly worded post on their forum from the boss giving his personal opinion (I won't repeat here because of their forum Ts&Cs), but no official comment on retrospection. I can't see why they would have ruled it out unless HMRC confirmed an amnesty, which realistically was never likely to happen.

You can probably find the links on here as much as on there. Look for when I first started talking about retrospective claims in early December.

RonBW
25th January 2017, 21:57
You can probably find the links on here as much as on there. Look for when I first started talking about retrospective claims in early December.

I can't see IPSE posted anything here since November

teapot418
25th January 2017, 22:00
You can probably find the links on here as much as on there. Look for when I first started talking about retrospective claims in early December.

Can only find this from malvolio which agrees with someone suggesting retrospection is likely. Although don't think he's still on the board?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/118038-end-contractors-any-gov-uk-project-after-april-2017-a.html

MrMarkyMark
25th January 2017, 22:52
And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

:facepalm:

malvolio
25th January 2017, 23:24
And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped
That's not what was said, as you well know. And HMRC talk to IPSE regularly on all sorts of issues that may affect contractors, as you also know.

The driver for both of your examples - and several others - was wilful abuse of what would otherwise be perfectly valid options. HMRC see us gaining a tax advantage in the same light. Snag is, they are completely wrong, but are you going to tell them that?

malvolio
25th January 2017, 23:31
Can only find this from malvolio which agrees with someone suggesting retrospection is likely. Although don't think he's still on the board?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/118038-end-contractors-any-gov-uk-project-after-april-2017-a.html
Not since 2009... :wink

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 03:12
And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped
Myself, I'm actually struggling to see what all the fuss is about. At the other place, the mantra has always been - "We're businesses, not tax avoiders. We're not in it to reduce our tax, we're in it for the lifestyle choices". When questions have been raised in the past about the insidious creeping tax burden, they have been met with the above response. A classic one was the dividend tax that hurts contractors WAY more than the population at large, not a peep was heard from over there.

So, if you are all in it (especially those over in the other place) for the lifestyle, why are you all whinging about a few quid in extra tax?

At least I have always been honest, I have never, ever, pretended it to be about lifestyle - To me it has always been about selling my skill for as much as possible and hanging on to it as much as I legally could within the MyCo Ltd structure. And I'll be quite frank about it, I have done darn well out of it too. Times have changed, time to move on.

It is chickens coming home to roost time now?

eek
26th January 2017, 05:54
That's not what was said, as you well know. And HMRC talk to IPSE regularly on all sorts of issues that may affect contractors, as you also know.

The driver for both of your examples - and several others - was wilful abuse of what would otherwise be perfectly valid options. HMRC see us gaining a tax advantage in the same light. Snag is, they are completely wrong, but are you going to tell them that?

Not quite. We use Limited companies because since the 1970's we cannot be self employed due to agencies abusing Self Employment.

Since the 1970's the tax system has changed to make limited companies more attractive and more tax efficient than the other options.

IPSE's problem is that they believe contractors are special and have a right to be special, hence schemes such as the FLC.

My viewpoint isn't that we are special but that I've done very well out of the tax efficiencys I get from the way I work - but I understand and accept things need to change due to the complete and utter abuse of the current system (everywhere but especially inside the Public Sector).

You will note that the one thing I have continually objected to was the expense changes when inside IR35. Thinking about it that really should have been in IPSE's email because for those like Tarbera who travel what could still be a nice contract inside IR35 really isn't..

eek
26th January 2017, 05:58
Myself, I'm actually struggling to see what all the fuss is about. At the other place, the mantra has always been - "We're businesses, not tax avoiders. We're not in it to reduce our tax, we're in it for the lifestyle choices". When questions have been raised in the past about the insidious creeping tax burden, they have been met with the above response. A classic one was the dividend tax that hurts contractors WAY more than the population at large, not a peep was heard from over there.

So, if you are all in it (especially those over in the other place) for the lifestyle, why are you all whinging about a few quid in extra tax?

At least I have always been honest, I have never, ever, pretended it to be about lifestyle - To me it has always been about selling my skill for as much as possible and hanging on to it as much as I legally could within the MyCo Ltd structure. And I'll be quite frank about it, I have done darn well out of it too. Times have changed, time to move on.

It is chickens coming home to roost time now?

That's slightly unfair. The dividend tax hit contractors but it didn't raise total tax paid to the same level as PAYE and the expenses changes they announced and pushed through at the same time were far more significant.

You can't fight multiple battles at the same time IPSE picked the most important one to fight then....

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 07:15
That's slightly unfair. The dividend tax hit contractors but it didn't raise total tax paid to the same level as PAYE and the expenses changes they announced and pushed through at the same time were far more significant.

You can't fight multiple battles at the same time IPSE picked the most important one to fight then....
Sorry, I disagree. For Joe public to be hit by the dividend tax at all he needs to have around GBP 200k invested in dividend paying shares OUTSIDE an ISA or a pension. Given that most/many contractors split their dividends with their wives, that means to be hit by the divi tax to the same extent, Joe and Jane public need a cool GBP 400k invested OUTSIDE of tax shelters. How many people meet that description? Anyone who invests in shares does so in an ISA first, year after year. Joe and Jane can shelter GBP > 30k every year in ISAs.

So, the fact that TPTB at the other place dismissed the tax grab as "not a contractor issue", they as usual, miss the point by a mile and deny the inevitable consequences. Make no mistake, if the IR35 reforms fail then divi tax is going UP. There can be no doubt at all about it.

Edited to add - Oh, by the way, don't forget, all the brolly users got pushed under the bus any way with regard to expenses. No doubt because, "we're real businesses, so it shouldn't affect us". Yeah, right.

eek
26th January 2017, 07:58
Sorry, I disagree. For Joe public to be hit by the dividend tax at all he needs to have around GBP 200k invested in dividend paying shares OUTSIDE an ISA or a pension. Given that most/many contractors split their dividends with their wives, that means to be hit by the divi tax to the same extent, Joe and Jane public need a cool GBP 400k invested OUTSIDE of tax shelters. How many people meet that description? Anyone who invests in shares does so in an ISA first, year after year. Joe and Jane can shelter GBP > 30k every year in ISAs.

So, the fact that TPTB at the other place dismissed the tax grab as "not a contractor issue", they as usual, miss the point by a mile and deny the inevitable consequences. Make no mistake, if the IR35 reforms fail then divi tax is going UP. There can be no doubt at all about it.

Edited to add - Oh, by the way, don't forget, all the brolly users got pushed under the bus any way with regard to expenses. No doubt because, "we're real businesses, so it shouldn't affect us". Yeah, right.

You miss the fact it hit all company directors not just people using limited companies to sell their own services. Given that it really just moved dividend payments closer to PAYE tax levels while I dislike it, you can't argue against it. Granted you need to save an awful lot to otherwise be effected but given most people invest via ISAs it probably only effects directors of small companies and was intended to do so.

The expenses issue is a different one made especially hard by the fact most umbrellas were not playing fair (read outright abusing and ignoring) with the existing rules and were allowing clients to claim travel expenses from home when the umbrella was being used for a single contract. That abuse of what are fairly easy to understand rules meant arguing against the rule was incredibly difficult (believe me I watched umbrellas try in person).

So I think we'll need to agree to disagree there

RonBW
26th January 2017, 07:59
So, if you are all in it (especially those over in the other place) for the lifestyle, why are you all whinging about a few quid in extra tax?

As I understand it, being forced inside ir35 changes both lifestyle and taxation - you can't pay into your pension efficiently under these rules, you can't retain profit for lean times - and under these proposals you are worse off than anyone who is an employee.

But as an employee, none of this (including the dividend tax, presumably) affects you in the slightest.

difficulttimes
26th January 2017, 08:04
Coming back to the letter, I really think that IPSE have played fire with fire with the inclusion of the possibility of 'retrospective'. Some may argue that this gives HMRC an idea but I'm pretty sure they already had it and all they need to do is read this forum as well.

This email not only scares the contractor into walking but also would concern the end client because any investigation into working practices and contract would have to involve conversations with the end client. If we are talking hundreds if not thousands then PS bodies legal teams, HR teams etc. would be involved in conversations they don't want to be having.

It may stem the tide of a blanket everyone inside approach that TfL tried to implement.

P.S I think this email will also increase members taking up IR35 insurance. Something that will soon not exist when it transfers to the end client and eventually the private sector

northernladuk
26th January 2017, 08:15
Coming back to the letter, I really think that IPSE have played fire with fire with the inclusion of the possibility of 'retrospective'. Some may argue that this gives HMRC an idea but I'm pretty sure they already had it and all they need to do is read this forum as well.

This email not only scares the contractor into walking but also would concern the end client because any investigation into working practices and contract would have to involve conversations with the end client. If we are talking hundreds if not thousands then PS bodies legal teams, HR teams etc. would be involved in conversations they don't want to be having.

It may stem the tide of a blanket everyone inside approach that TfL tried to implement.

P.S I think this email will also increase members taking up IR35 insurance. Something that will soon not exist when it transfers to the end client and eventually the private sector

I'm on the fence on the fence about IPSE but this is a bit ridiculous. If anyone argues this gives HMRC an idea then they are idiots and you want to stop talking to them.

Also about scaring a contractor, if it does hit everyone will be moaning IPSE didn't tell them. It's a possibility it's unknown and no one can discount it so it would be remiss of IPSE to not mention it.

You don't get any communication you complain, you get it and you complain (rather badly). They just can't win.

Are you an IPSE member?

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 08:18
As I understand it, being forced inside ir35 changes both lifestyle and taxation - you can't pay into your pension efficiently under these rules, you can't retain profit for lean times - and under these proposals you are worse off than anyone who is an employee.

But as an employee, none of this (including the dividend tax, presumably) affects you in the slightest.
Errr, no. You will still be able to move from job to job or take time off or all the other life style choices. Just pay more tax, which apparently, isn't a life style issue at all. Mind you, when asked over there how many of them voluntarily pay the extra tax for being IR 35 caught, you are met with silence. Cake and eat it, anyone?

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 08:21
The expenses issue is a different one made especially hard by the fact most umbrellas were not playing fair (read outright abusing and ignoring) with the existing rules and were allowing clients to claim travel expenses from home when the umbrella was being used for a single contract. That abuse of what are fairly easy to understand rules meant arguing against the rule was incredibly difficult (believe me I watched umbrellas try in person). (FB - Edited the quote)
Be careful using arguments like that. The bit I highlighted is EXACTLY the same argument that is being used to reinforce the application of IR35.

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 08:22
I'm on the fence on the fence about IPSE but this is a bit ridiculous. If anyone argues this gives HMRC an idea then they are idiots and you want to stop talking to them.

Also about scaring a contractor, if it does hit everyone will be moaning IPSE didn't tell them. It's a possibility it's unknown and no one can discount it so it would be remiss of IPSE to not mention it.

You don't get any communication you complain, you get it and you complain (rather badly). They just can't win.
There will be NO retrospection. HMRC do NOT have the resources. Fact.

northernladuk
26th January 2017, 08:32
There will be NO retrospection. HMRC do NOT have the resources. Fact.

I wonder how many people would have said something like that about PS bodies putting all contractors inside IR35 not so long ago.

cojak
26th January 2017, 08:33
I'm on the fence on the fence about IPSE but this is a bit ridiculous. If anyone argues this gives HMRC an idea then they are idiots and you want to stop talking to them.


He wasn't suggesting this, eek suggested it in an earlier post.

SueEllen
26th January 2017, 08:35
Be careful using arguments like that. The bit I highlighted is EXACTLY the same argument that is being used to reinforce the application of IR35.

HMRC have many contractors working for them so they only need to look around their own department to make up arguments.

eek
26th January 2017, 08:38
HMRC have many contractors working for them so they only need to look around their own department to make up arguments.

I suspect come April the tense will be had.

eek
26th January 2017, 08:39
He wasn't suggesting this, eek suggested it in an earlier post.

It is one thing to know what operations are looking at operationally, another to outright ask for something you know no one can accept

RonBW
26th January 2017, 08:42
Errr, no. You will still be able to move from job to job or take time off or all the other life style choices. Just pay more tax, which apparently, isn't a life style issue at all. Mind you, when asked over there how many of them voluntarily pay the extra tax for being IR 35 caught, you are met with silence. Cake and eat it, anyone?

Err, yes. If the contractor can no longer have employer contributions to their pension made, they are worse off than an employee who can. If a company cannot retain income for the future then they are being treated in a manner which affects the lifestyle.

You are wrong. End of.

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 08:47
Err, yes. If the contractor can no longer have employer contributions to their pension made, they are worse off than an employee who can. If a company cannot retain income for the future then they are being treated in a manner which affects the lifestyle.

You are wrong. End of.
Erm, nope. Not wrong at all. If your employer allows it then you can salary sacrifice into a pension. The effect is EXACTLY the same. In both cases ErNIC, EeNIC and income tax are all avoided on the money salary sacrificed into a pension. How am I wrong, exactly?

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 08:50
I wonder how many people would have said something like that about PS bodies putting all contractors inside IR35 not so long ago.
And, exactly what resources does that involve from HMRC then? None at all, perhaps?

youngguy
26th January 2017, 08:52
There will be NO retrospection. HMRC do NOT have the resources. Fact.

I'm not so sure.....look at DOTAS and other such things.

HMRC can spend the next few yrs sending letters out and chasing and that will be far easier than their current method of starting investigations.

Remember half of this is about HMRC trying to make themselves look better after underperforming for 2 decades.

eek
26th January 2017, 08:52
Erm, nope. Not wrong at all. If your employer allows it then you can salary sacrifice into a pension. The effect is EXACTLY the same. In both cases ErNIC, EeNIC and income tax are all avoided on the money salary sacrificed into a pension. How am I wrong, exactly?

I suspect that agencies won't cope with salary sacrifice which is why in the FAQ at the top I emphasis it as a reason to use an umbrella.

I would point out that is not a great option (other changes in April make umbrellas more expensive than before) but it's the best deal if you want to pay largish Sums into a pension

youngguy
26th January 2017, 08:54
As I understand it, being forced inside ir35 changes both lifestyle and taxation - you can't pay into your pension efficiently under these rules, you can't retain profit for lean times - and under these proposals you are worse off than anyone who is an employee.

But as an employee, none of this (including the dividend tax, presumably) affects you in the slightest.

Tax is one thing but the expenses (specifically pensions ) seems like madness for a Gov with an ageing population and pension issues.

Many contractors won't be able to adequately prepared for the future and their retirements and if that's the case then Gov will pick up the tab

Fred Bloggs
26th January 2017, 08:57
I suspect that agencies won't cope with salary sacrifice which is why in the FAQ at the top I emphasis it as a reason to use an umbrella.

I would point out that is not a great option (other changes in April make umbrellas more expensive than before) but it's the best deal if you want to pay largish Sums into a pension
Absolutely, employee or MyCo director, salary sacrifice or employer contributions are awesome. While it lasts. The last review of salary sacrifice came close to abolishing it, IIRC.

eek
26th January 2017, 08:57
I'm not so sure.....look at DOTAS and other such things.

HMRC can spend the next few yrs sending letters out and chasing and that will be far easier than their current method of starting investigations.

Remember half of this is about HMRC trying to make themselves look better after underperforming for 2 decades.

+1. Prior to April working out who to investigate was largely down to manual effort and guess work. Come April there is a dataset of plausible cases to play with.

And it was the working out of who to target that was time consuming not the triggering of an inquiry. That but is easy. And if it takes years for the investigations to play out hmrc won't care they'll just get their psychological department to ramp up the pressure

northernladuk
26th January 2017, 08:57
And, exactly what resources does that involve from HMRC then? None at all, perhaps?

None? Really?

youngguy
26th January 2017, 08:58
I suspect that agencies won't cope with salary sacrifice which is why in the FAQ at the top I emphasis it as a reason to use an umbrella.

I would point out that is not a great option (other changes in April make umbrellas more expensive than before) but it's the best deal if you want to pay largish Sums into a pension

And it is worth pointing out that if you use an umbrella (probably the best option given their experience ) you can usually only pay into THEIR pension scheme.

DotasScandal
26th January 2017, 10:04
And it was the working out of who to target that was time consuming not the triggering of an inquiry. That but is easy. And if it takes years for the investigations to play out hmrc won't care they'll just get their psychological department to ramp up the pressure

Exactly this.
DOTAS/APNs are the blueprint, just look at the protocol being applied in that area.

eek
26th January 2017, 10:07
And it is worth pointing out that if you use an umbrella (probably the best option given their experience ) you can usually only pay into THEIR pension scheme.

There are plenty of brella companies. Not all have that restriction

DaveB
26th January 2017, 11:02
There are plenty of brella companies. Not all have that restriction

And the reputable ones may well start offering the ability to pay into a specific pension account as the landscape changes. There are going to be lots of contractors potentially looking for a good brolly, so that could well be a major selling point for them.

PStanley70
26th January 2017, 11:03
There are plenty of brella companies. Not all have that restriction
Do you have any suggestions for umbrellas who will fund a SIPP? All the umbrellas I've talked to only allow salary sacrifice into their own scheme. Obviously this could be used as a temporary home for the funds and then transfer out, but it's preferable to fund the SIPP directly.

jamesbrown
27th January 2017, 17:24
New guide here (https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/guide-ir35-public-sector). Haven't read it yet...

Yorkie62
28th January 2017, 10:13
New guide here (https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/guide-ir35-public-sector). Haven't read it yet...

In the process of reading the guide and came accross this bit

How will business expenses be taken into account?
The five per cent allowance which is made for business
expenses in the normal IR35 rules has been removed for these
public sector arrangements. Needless to say, IPSE believes this
is extremely unfair. There is no allowance for legitimate business
costs such as accountancy and insurance. This is particularly
punitive as for many contractors these costs are necessary and
substantial. IPSE has pressed the Government to reconsider
these allowances.
The only allowable expenses are:
• the direct cost of materials used in performance of the
services; and
• expenses that would have been deductible if the worker had
been the client’s employee.

Now, having worked for a small consultancy in the past, on a 'Home based contract' we could claim travel and subsistence expenses when working away from our 'base' - Home Address. Therefore, if your contract with the agency and your co, stating your co's registered address, and the clients employees are allowed to claim travel and subsistence expenses when working away from their base location, i.e. at another client co's site, then is it not reasonable to be allowed to claim travel and subsistence expenses from your ltd co's registered address and the clients co's site as your base location when working through a limited co is always your registered address?

Discuss?

jamesbrown
28th January 2017, 11:07
Discuss?

Following the changes to the T&S rules last year, you can no longer claim tax relief on home to work travel when operating inside IR35 (or subject to SDC via an umbrella) because each engagement is considered a separate employment to which you would be "ordinarily commuting" and for which no tax relief is available to employees.

teapot418
28th January 2017, 11:47
Discuss?

Can clientCo's employees claim home to work travel? Under the changed rules last year, for the duration of your contract, the main site becomes your 'permanent' workplace. You would still be able to claim for trips to other sites etc, in the same way as employees of clientCo would.

eek
28th January 2017, 12:04
Can clientCo's employees claim home to work travel? Under the changed rules last year, for the duration of your contract, the main site becomes your 'permanent' workplace. You would still be able to claim for trips to other sites etc, in the same way as employees of clientCo would.

But as we witnessed in a thread late last year if you head to a client site every week the umbrella /agency may decide that you expenses are simply part of the renumeration that needs to be taxed as incone

b r
28th January 2017, 14:13
Can clientCo's employees claim home to work travel?

This isn't unusual for home-based employees, not everyone has a base (company) office.

Taking TfL as an example, a pal of mine works for one of their suppliers and he's home-based. Travels to one of their London offices most days - all expensed.

malvolio
28th January 2017, 14:15
This isn't unusual for home-based employees, not everyone has a base (company) office.

Taking TfL as an example, a pal of mine works for one of their suppliers and he's home-based. Travels to one of their London offices most days - all expensed.
Not any more it isn't. At least, not for us: we're not employees.