Firstly, despite not contributing to this site for a while (can't blame being busy!) I just wanted to say how incredibly useful it is. I read all the posts with great interest and it is wonderful to see how supportive everyone is.
I'm just preparing for business to hopefully pick up as the majority of my work is end of year and tax returns.
I was looking for some advice re agency workers as I have not had any dealings before. I was on the understanding that travel expenses were only allowable between places of work but my client seems to think he can claim for home to work travel. I would appreciate any input on this.
Many thanks in anticipation and keep up the good work
__________________
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
there are all sorts of rules around this area which can be confusing and at times seemingly contradictory.
The key really is what constitutes a normal place of work?
HMRC's stance on this can be found in EIM32356. (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM32356.htm).
If you work from home and visit client premises then that is a temporary workplace and is an allowable expense.
You also need to consider the two year rule. (see http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/item/174318 and also http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/item/165748).
Overall conclusion. Where the home is also your clients office and the travel is to a non permanent workplace and the the two year rule is not breached then home to work travel IS an allowable expense for agency workers.
Note that the client must keep a log of all business miles traveled and as soon as the client knows that they are likely to be at a site for more than two years (even if such becomes apparent on day one and the contract ends after 23 months) all travel expenses must cease.
Hope that this helps,
kind regards,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Many thanks for all your speedy replies, the link was really helpful Bill thank you.
There does seem to be many contradictions
My client is a building site foreman and he worked via an agency for a period of 4 months before becoming employed by the company he was contracted to. He only ever attended one place of work during this time but as it was less than 2 years am I right to conclude that he could indeed class this travel as allowable.
Valerie
__________________
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
Always good to know the facts before arguing the point with over zealous clients who would claim for their kit kat given the chance!
Valerie
__________________
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
This one has an added complication in that on the Friday he was and employee and on the Monday he's self employed but he's still doing the same job for the same company.
That was the main, but mostly ill conceived, argument behind the IR35 legislation.
In this instance I think that your client is in some ways on very dodgy ground as his agency status is just a vehicle with which to avoid employee obligations and rights.
This situation seems to fall in more with the revenue argument that the expense merely puts the employee in a position to perform his duties rather than being a legitimate business expense. However, at the same time it is site based so limited duration which indicates that it's allowable... But then again even though the client may only be at one site for a limited period of time they will not be changing employers to go to a different site which would indicate that this is psuedo employment and if any travel expenses were forthcoming they should be paid by the employer rather than being an expense of the business.
Sorry, was thinking whilst writing the above so it's just a brain dump... Worth leaving in the reply though as it shows where my mind wandered whilst formulating an opinion.
In this instance (and every instance should be taken on it's own merits) I think that Bill's hit the nail on the head in that travel expenses would, where applicable, due to the psuedo employee nature of this relationship be paid by the company employing your client and would indeed be a taxable expense.
Of course, now we come to a different matter in that the employing company probably made your client go down the agency worker route purely to avoid this sort of expense so may be adverse to paying travel expenses arguing that if your client wishes to work for them then it is not down to them how he gets to their site... Which of course is an argument for it being an allowable expense.
I think that for this case you need a ruling from the revenue in relation to your client. The argument can be taken either way so get the revenue's feeling on it up front as you don't want to be investigated on it later on.
Hope that this helps but suspect that its not the answer that you were looking for,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
you managed three answers in the time it took me to think through one.... You're going for Guru status I can tell!
I think that now we have more facts that we're pretty much in agreement that in this instance it's not an allowable expense.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
your answers may be shorter than mine but you seem to get to the correct answer quicker.
For my original response I was thinking of the example of an IT worker based in London who takes a contract in Glasgow. Of course, this case proved to be something completely different once we had the facts.
Anyway, I'm not too bad at all thanks matey.
Just been listening to Alastair Darling putting the last nails in labours coffin.
I think that David Cameron was better prepared for the opposition response than Alastair was for the actual budget. Just hope that enough undecided voters watched it.
talk later,
Shaun.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
You reckon undecided voters watch, listen or take any notice whatsoever of a budget Shaun - oh you optimist. All the undecided are bothered about is whether or not their booze, fags and/or petrol have gone up.
Unfortunately I do believe that you're right Sheila!
I hate to think that we could have another 5 years of this bunch of financial incompetents on the back of apathy but it could happen.
__________________
Shaun
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
But please save me from George Osbourne and give us Vince Cable...at least he is an accountant, though I don't agree with his view on unqualified accountants.
Agree that Vince Cable appears to be financially aware but I thought his tax on million + houses was not a very good way to raise the amount of tax we need to help service the debt.
I think Osbourne is a lightweight but with the backing and knowledge of Ken Clarke who is very experienced, and left Broon with the country in good shape which even he (Broon) acknowledged, we could be on to a good thing.
Time will tell..personally I couldn't vote Tory but I would probably be better off they won! Problem is that I have quite lost faith in the lot of them.
Thakns again for all your replies. I may indeed get the nod from HMRC. Nothings ever clear cut is it!
__________________
Responses are not meant as a substitute for professional advice. Answers are intended as outline only the advice of a qualified professional with access to all relevant information should be sought before acting on any response given.
