2 year guidance on contract lengths

[Guesstimator]

just to counter your opinion with my actual experiences, I have a letter from HMRC which states that if there is a site move of greater than 10 miles, then the clock is reset. It makes no mention of the same geographical area. I had started a contract in Longbridge, moved to Redditch, then Solihul, then Gaydon then Whitley, then Coventry and finally Warwick. So on the basis of the letter, the clock reset with each move.

If you lived smack in the middle of those, eg Kenilworth, then I could see that being OK because each is a change in journey direction...edit; actually, arguably the move from Whitley to Coventry is the same journey.
However, forgive me, but without proof (ie seeing your letter) I'll defer to my accountant on the matter.

[JohntheBike]

If you lived smack in the middle of those, eg Kenilworth, then I could see that being OK because each is a change in journey direction...edit; actually, arguably the move from Whitley to Coventry is the same journey.
However, forgive me, but without proof (ie seeing your letter) I'll defer to my accountant on the matter.

bear in mind that the letter was a statement from a local tax inspector during an investigation into my expenses claims regarding my personal circumstances, so may not be HMRC general policy. I was based just outside Birmingham throughout the period of moves, although living in South Wales.

[JohntheBike]

Are you able to share a copy of the letter please? (with personal details redacted)

It is embedded in a large file of documents stored in my loft, so that wouldn't be easy. However, I guess you should refer to my later post regarding the surrounding issues.

[JohntheBike]

Digging a bit deeper then I wouldn't trust the ink on that piece of paper as it flies in the face of HMRC's own guidance.

Their website says..



Your 10 miles could be 5 miles one way from your home and 5 the other. In which case there is no substantial effect on the journey therefore their own guidance on 10 miles is wrong.

yes, but I guess you need to view my later post regarding the circumstances. It clearly is a grey area and some might construe that given my known aggressive approach to HMRC at that time, the inspector might have back tracked to get some extra tax from me, which he did. Also, I'd only ever refer to the letter again on a personal basis and would be very reluctant to use it to demonstrate HMRC policy.

[northernladuk]

I was based just outside Birmingham throughout the period of moves, although living in South Wales.

So failing Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 and the geographical area actually helped clear it up.

known aggressive approach to HMRC at that time

Yet you'll stand by a single comment embedded in documentation that's clearly not following policy???

Also, I'd only ever refer to the letter again on a personal basis and would be very reluctant to use it to demonstrate HMRC policy.

But thanks for your input in to this thread. It's been a great help

[JohntheBike]

So failing Section 339(7) ITEPA 2003 and the geographical area actually helped clear it up.



Yet you'll stand by a single comment embedded in documentation that's clearly not following policy???



But thanks for your input in to this thread. It's been a great help

"So failing Section 339"

well, not according to the inspector who was investigating my expenses. The extra tax was due for other reasons.

"Yet you'll stand by a single comment embedded in documentation that's clearly not following policy?"

yes, if I'd been challenged at a later date.

"But thanks for your input in to this thread. It's been a great help"

make of it what you will, I'm just relating my experiences.

Just to give you a flavour of the investigation and HMRC's bullying, they slapped a tax bill on me for "wrongly" claimed expenses, which exceeded the total value of the expenses claimed. Naturally, this incensed me greatly and eventually HMRC accepted a settlement which was in the region of 20% of their original claim. During the investigation, the inspector made many mistakes and accused me of tax evasion, which I countered with documents. One of the mistakes he continually made was to quote my company name incorrectly. Ultimately, the inspector in question was "demoted" or something like that, according to my accountant. One interesting tactic was that he brought with him to all the interviews the most gorgeous creature that I've ever seen in my life. Very disarming!

and, as I've repeatedly indicated, the area director advised the inspector not to investigate me under IR35, as a result of losing my ET case.

[northernladuk]

/care