travel expenses

malcindebt

Can I ask a question on behalf of my extremely hard working nephew who is being ripped off by HMRC.

He's a multiskilled builder so does a bit of everything from general building to electrics, plumbing, gas (he is fully qualified and certificated in all trades).

He's employed by 3 different employment agencies/umbrella companies and he said that up until part way through last year they all paid him travel expenses and some expenses for food. Sometimes this was mileage in his own car and sometimes because of the distances he travelled it was for train and bus tickets, plus hotel costs.They also gave a flat rate amount daily for food and drink. He has said that these payments then stopped part way through last year and he was told by the umbrella company that it was something the whole of the industry was now doing but to not worry as he would be able to claim the expenses from HMRC.

He filled in the online claim form on 8th April and got a pretty quick reply back, within a couple or 3 weeks which said they were not giving him an adjustment for the expenses as they didn't think they were due, but if he felt that the decision was wrong to send them a list of information and receipts, information from his employer etc.

It took him a few days to get that information and he sent it off.

He got a letter back today, again quite a quick response, which said that as he was working for an agency or umbrella company that there was no claim to be made because of changes that happenned in April 2016, and that the jobs he does for the agency and umbrella company are treated as though they are seperate employments and not temporary assignments, and so all travel is deemed to be commuting from home to work and work to home.

I believe HMRC are completely wrong on this. I cannot find anything that suggests that the law has changed.

This is simply the big boys picking on the little man.

For 3 months last year he travelled nearly 300 miles to work and then 300 back, travelling down on a Sunday evening and coming back on a Friday Morning, at his own cost, just to make sure he isn't sat on the rock'n'roll, and is actually earning. He worked longer than the other lads he was with just to make sure he could finish early n the Friday so he had at least a few hours rest at home with his wife and family.

Its utterly wrong. He'd be much better off on benefits like those who refuse to work. Those people who hold the country to ransom.

Another time he had to travel to the tip of Scotland for a job he was doing through the umbrella company, on the train and in a hotel for 5 weeks, again travelling Sunday and returning Friday. In the end he was working for less than £200 a week.

I have no doubt having read the comments from some on there that this is complete and utter bumbling error by incompetent, people who don't understand the actual tax laws and jsut put their jobsworth hat on and refuse claims for the fun of it.


I have no idea why the government allows people to make decisions on peoples tax who have no professional tax training, especially as having seen some of these people it doesn't seem they've even got basic GCSE qualifications.

TheCyclingProgrammer

I'm afraid what the umbrella says is correct.

Employees can claim travel expenses in limited circumstances. It used to be that if you worked for an umbrella you could claim travel expenses when working at a temporary workplace.

If you worked for several end clients through the same umbrella each new clients workplace could be treated as a new temporary workplace, subject to the 24 month rule. So long as each client resulted in a significant change of journey you could keep claiming.

Under the new rules, engagements through the same umbrella are now treated as successive permanent workplaces where the employee is under supervision, direction or control and therefore any travel is ordinary commuting.

This rule is similar to how people working through their own personal service companies have to consider IR35 and if they are caught by these rules they cannot claim travel expenses. If you use an umbrella then IR35 cannot apply but the new expenses rule normally will.

You can find an overview of these changes here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/income-tax-employment-intermediaries-and-relief-for-travel-and-subsistence/income-tax-employment-intermediaries-and-relief-for-travel-and-subsistence

malcindebt

Well,this is disgusting. Whats the point in going to work, especially when you have to travel such long distances before you even start.

The poor lad might as well jack it in and go on the sick/dole with the rest of the scroungers who are plunging our once great country into more and more debt.

Surely this disgusting rule has to be challenged in the courts? How can it be fair that these lads travel so far to get to work and cannot claim expenses to cover their costs?

How can working at a different place every few weeks not be classed as temporary workplaces. It seems like yet another HMRC muck up. They don't even seem to understand the definition of temporary.

I'd happilly help fund any challenge against this discriminatory change to rules.

Wayne_O_Mac

malcindebt wrote: »

I'd happilly help fund any challenge against this discriminatory change to rules.

Why not just set fire to some banknotes? It will have the same effect and take you less time.

bowlhead99

malcindebt wrote: »

Well,this is disgusting. Whats the point in going to work, especially when you have to travel such long distances before you even start.

To earn money, like the rest of us have to?

Surely this disgusting rule has to be challenged in the courts? How can it be fair that these lads travel so far to get to work and cannot claim expenses to cover their costs?

You mention that he spent 3 months travelling to a place a long way from where he lives. How far it is away from where he lives is neither here nor there. We all make decisions about whether we want a short or long commute to work; how far we're willing to travel for it.

The way to get paid expenses is if you are travelling out to somewhere other than your normal place of employment. What was his normal place of employment? He only had one job, and that was to do building work at this one place for three months. So, he is just 'going to work', which is not something tax-deductible. I agree it will be expensive to travel to work if it's 200 miles away.

How can working at a different place every few weeks not be classed as temporary workplaces. It seems like yet another HMRC muck up.

If you think the place he worked every day for three months was 'temporary', what was the permanent place he normally worked at? The umbrella company's address? How many days a year did he work there? None? Doesn't seem like that was his permanent workplace. So the place that you think was temporary was the only workplace he had.

They don't even seem to understand the definition of temporary.

Perhaps you don't. Or, he doesn't. He is the one who is a breadwinner with a wife and family. Understanding how the world works is his duty. Your taking-up his cause, being told the company is doing it right, and venting your faux outrage here is not doing him much good.

I'd happilly help fund any challenge against this discriminatory change to rules.

OK then, go ahead. Can you get me back some money for my season ticket to travel into London from miles away? I live far from the office because it's cheaper than renting a place near my employer's office, to which I keep commuting daily. I have to travel into London most days as that's where the people are who I'm working for, but I consider the workplace temporary because I won't work for them forever. In life's rich pageant, a few months or years of a hundred year lifespan is surely only temporary.

Pennywise

Lots of people have high commuting costs. Some people are paying several thousand pounds per year for a train season ticket. They don't get tax relief on it either.

The agency/umbrella scenario was a loophole that a lot of people took advantage of and has now, correctly been plugged. If firms want workers in obscure parts of the country requiring people to travel long distances, then they'll have to increase their hourly rates to compensate for the travel time/costs paid by their workers.

le_loup

malcindebt wrote: »

The poor lad might as well jack it in and go on the sick/dole with the rest of the scroungers who are plunging our once great country into more and more debt.

I should write to the Daily Mail if I were you - they will be very sympathetic.

ceivegz

I wish I could deduct my £4000/year annual rail card for my 35 min commute into London from my tax...I'd be £2,600 a year better off!

Can your nephew not get work as a self-employed contractor? That way he may be able to treat travel expenses as a business cost.

agrinnall

malcindebt wrote: »

I have no doubt having read the comments from some on there that this is complete and utter bumbling error by incompetent, people who don't understand the actual tax laws and jsut put their jobsworth hat on and refuse claims for the fun of it.

The bit in bold seems to be correct, it's just that it's been applied to the wrong people, a look in the mirror might help.

Wookey

ceivegz wrote: »

Can your nephew not get work as a self-employed contractor? That way he may be able to treat travel expenses as a business cost.

Pretty much this is what he should be doing, if he is as skilled as you say there should be no shortage of work a lot closer to home. Or find employment with a firm who pay there way for employee's if working at distance, because you can be sure that any firm is charging there clients for those expenses.