Working from home - what can I claim?

lisass

Hi, first time poster so please be kind!

I have recently returned to work from mat leave and my contract is now states my place of work as my home. My office is about 90 miles away and I make this journey sporadically about once every 3 weeks.

I understand I can claim £6/wk tax relief but I'm wondering if there is anything more I can claim.

Can I claim more for household bills? (especially considering the energy prices at the moment!) How would I do this?
Can I claim tax relief on mileage to the office as my employer does not cover this expense?
Can I claim tax relief on food/drink consumed outside of the home on days I am not wfh?
Anything else?

Any and all advise very welcome. Thank you.

[Deleted User]

All here - note the ‘check if you can claim’ button at the bottom. 

https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/working-at-home

Jeremy535897

The fundamental question is whether there is anything special about your home or your job that mean that it is necessary for you to work from home to do your job. This is explained in more detail in relation to travel costs (but the issue is relevant for other costs too) in https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/btr/455-120 :

"Home as a workplace

As discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the cost of travel from home to work is not normally accepted as an expense incurred in the performance of the employment duties. At EIM 32170 (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim32170 )  HMRC comment that ‘if the employee's home is accepted to be a workplace for tax purposes the employee may possibly be entitled to relief under Section 337 ITEPA 2003 for the expenses of travelling from home to a permanent workplace in respect of the same employment. Such journeys may count as travelling ‘in the performance of the duties’ of the employment’. That seems a fair enough interpretation of the rules and the principle seems to be illustrated in the immediately following paragraph of the HMRC manual (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim32171) which reads as follows:

‘An employee is employed to train animals to help disabled people. It is essential that these animals are familiar with a normal domestic environment and so most of the training takes place in his home. It is an objective requirement of his employment that his duties are carried out at his home.

The employee's home is a workplace. A deduction is due for the cost of travel between his home and other workplaces that he attends to carry out the duties of his employment. A deduction is due whether those other workplaces are permanent or temporary workplaces, see EIM32170.’

The HMRC paragraph has the heading ‘Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: employees who work at home: example’, a clear reference to section 337 ITEPA 2003 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/337/enacted (which is headed ‘Travel for necessary attendance’). In reality, however, it would seem that a deduction would be due in these circumstances not under that section but under section 337 (as an expense incurred in the performance of the employment duties). The only reason the deduction is due, though, is that there is a requirement that is imposed by the nature of the duties of the employment for the employee to work from home; in this way, the home becomes a workplace within the definition given at section 339 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/339/enacted) and relief is due for the cost of travel between two workplaces. This can be contrasted with the following example from https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim32172

‘An employee's duties are such that she often has to work late into the evenings. At such times she has no access to her employer's premises (her permanent workplace) and so she takes work home with her. It is nonetheless still a matter of personal choice where the work is done (it is not an objective requirement that it be done at home rather than elsewhere). Her home is not a workplace.

No deduction is due for the cost of travel between her home and her employer's premises because that is a permanent workplace.’

Other circumstances

The facts in Pook v Owen, and the circumstances outlined in the paragraphs immediately above, are correctly viewed by HMRC as exceptional. The general principle therefore remains that a journey from home to a permanent workplace qualifies neither under section 337 nor under section 338; the mere fact that home is a workplace does not change this. As such, Pook v Owen will rarely be of help when seeking a deduction in other cases.

In Waner v Prior , for example, a supply teacher worked at a number of schools and also had to work at an office at home. The special commissioner rejected her claim for travel expenses between her home-based office and school, on the ground that her secondary place of work at home was dictated by where she lived and not by the requirements of the job itself.

In Kirkwood (HMIT) v Evans [ the taxpayer, who worked at home under an optional homeworking scheme, was denied a deduction for the costs of travelling to his employer's office in Leeds, which he was required to do once a week. It was the taxpayer's personal choice to make his home in King's Lynn, rather than a dictate of the job. The mere fact that the taxpayer had two places of work was not enough to ensure relief for the costs of travel between them. The Leeds office was, on the facts, a ‘permanent workplace’. The fact that the employee also worked at home did not prevent the journey from his home to the Leeds office from being ordinary commuting within what is now section 338 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/1/section/338/enacted). A similar decision, on similar facts, was reached in Lewis v R & C Commrs ."

For expenses other than travel, the legislation is in section 336 ITEPA 2003, which says:

"(1)The general rule is that a deduction from earnings is allowed for an amount if—

(a)the employee is obliged to incur and pay it as holder of the employment, and

(b)the amount is incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment.

(2)The following provisions of this Chapter contain additional rules allowing deductions for particular kinds of expenses and rules preventing particular kinds of deductions.

(3)No deduction is allowed under this section for an amount that is deductible under sections 337 to 342 (travel expenses)."

The problem wording is "the employee is obliged to incur and pay it as holder of the employment". This requires more than a statement in the contract of employment to the effect that your main place of work is your home. In 2020/21 and 2021/22 the government accepted that any requirement to work from home sufficed, because the law stated (for at least part of each of those years) that employees had to work from home if they could.