This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.
Analytics

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.

Essential

Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet

Temporary or Permanent Workplace - 24 month rule

Alcosaint
Posts:20
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:42 pm

Postby Alcosaint » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:44 am

I'm acting for an employee in construction industry who is site based, working for a medium sized firm of house builders. Its sites don't usually last 2 years from start to finish and so there is, as a general rule, no expectation that the employee will have a permament workplace under 24 month rule and so mileage (to a temporary workplace) is allowable, not commuting. However, I'm putting in (to HMRC) 6 years of backdated P87's (to recover tax on mileage payments received at less than approved rates).

Question is this - does a site become a permanent workplace if, retrospectively, it's seen that the employee spent more than 40% of his time there over a 2 year period? Strikes me that this would be harsh and difficult to administer. (Annual P87 claims (as opposed to the 6 years worth I'm doing in one go) would have to be reviewed approx 1 year after submission if this is the case, to see if the year following the one being claimed for resulted in 24 months rule being relevant!)

taxattack
Posts:309
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:44 pm

Postby taxattack » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:38 am

Alcosaint
Maybe I have misunderstood your question, but I'm not sure I see why there would be a retrospective "discovery" as you describe.
If records are kept - as they would have to be to substantiate the claim - it would surely be obvious as soon as the 24 month point was reached.
Or am I being obtuse?
regards
chris@taxattack.co.uk

Bob Jones
Posts:268
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:43 pm

Postby Bob Jones » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:25 pm

The legislation is forward looking by virtue of the inclusion "reasonable to assume" in S339(5) ITEPA 2003.
You will find the answer to your problem at http://www.travel-expenses.info/Rules%20in%20detail.htm
Click on 24 month rule ..

Bob

Alcosaint
Posts:20
Joined:Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:42 pm

Postby Alcosaint » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:18 pm

Thanks Chris and Bob.

I'd found the travel-expenses website recently and it's a great resource. Putting both of your replies together, plus looking at the website again I think I'm making sense of it. Chris, you're right that it is obvious when the 24 month point is reached. My question was whether this, looking back retrospectively over a six year period in this case, negates the whole 2 year period for a business travel claim. I'm now pretty sure that the answer is no. As you stated Bob, the legislation is forward looking and it's only after the 24 month point has been reached that the mileage stops being allowable.

Thanks again for the help. Claims about to go in to HMRC and I'll find out soon enough if they're accepted.......

Al


Return to “Income Tax”

cron