One of the more useful e-briefs issued by Revenue today relates to the claiming of travel & subsistence expenses. It seems to have been released as a result of Revenue's current ongoing investigations into expense claims raised by directors in "one-man-band" companies where the company holds contracts with one or more customers
[broken link removed]
It clarifies a few issues and myths, not least the one where directors were claiming expenses to and from their home to customers' places of business, which is now expressly disbarred by the e-brief
A couple of things / queries on the e-briefing examples:
Example 9 states that
The non-reimbursement of the living away from home expenses seems excessively harsh and I wonder is this a mis-print as I can see no reason why the expenses of living away would NOT be allowed in this instance.
Example 5 states that
Is the "changes work pattern" part relevant here. Would the Friday expenses be allowed if she had always worked the 4-days-at-home-1-day-at-customer and didn't change from her original practice or is there some other reason why the Friday expenses are not to be re-imbursed free of tax
Example 8 states that
Again this seems harsh. Just because Alison chooses to work from home shouldn't preclude her home as being her normal place of business
Can anyone shed any further light on these 3 examples?
[broken link removed]
It clarifies a few issues and myths, not least the one where directors were claiming expenses to and from their home to customers' places of business, which is now expressly disbarred by the e-brief
A couple of things / queries on the e-briefing examples:
Example 9 states that
Adam is a director of a company. Throughout the tax year 2012 the company won three contracts with three different clients to install heavy duty electrical equipment at three different premises. Adam spent 2 months, 6 months and 4 months respectively in the year 2012 at the 3 different premises installing the equipment. The expenses of travel incurred by Adam on the return journey from his home to the various premises and any expenses of living away from home may not be reimbursed free of tax.
The non-reimbursement of the living away from home expenses seems excessively harsh and I wonder is this a mis-print as I can see no reason why the expenses of living away would NOT be allowed in this instance.
Example 5 states that
Deirdre is a director of a company with a contract to provide advertising services to GH Ltd. Up to December 2012, she worked at the premises of GH Ltd but GH Ltd now allows her to work from home and she attends the premises of GH Ltd every Friday to provide work updates and discuss projects. The expenses of travel and subsistence incurred on the return journey each Friday between Deirdre’s home and the premises of GH Ltd may not be reimbursed free of tax.
Is the "changes work pattern" part relevant here. Would the Friday expenses be allowed if she had always worked the 4-days-at-home-1-day-at-customer and didn't change from her original practice or is there some other reason why the Friday expenses are not to be re-imbursed free of tax
Example 8 states that
Alison is a director of a company with three engineering contracts. On most days she works from home by choice. Once a month she takes a day out to attend the premises of the three clients to discuss issues arising on the engineering contracts. The travel and subsistence expenses incurred by Alison on the journey from her home to the first call and from the last call to her home may not be reimbursed free of tax. They are not expenses which are necessarily incurred “in the performance of the duties” of the office or employment.
Again this seems harsh. Just because Alison chooses to work from home shouldn't preclude her home as being her normal place of business
Can anyone shed any further light on these 3 examples?