Contractor and travel expenses

G

GreenMan

Registered User
Messages
3
Trying to figure out if I'm entitled to claim travel/accommodation expenses.

I have my own company and am the only employee. I provide specialist IT services to a pharmaceutical company that is based 200 miles from my home. This is on rolling contract basis. Right now I'm on a 9 mth contract and this will likely get extended.

My typical week is to work from my home office 3 days and travel to site with an overnight stay for the other 2 days.

Can I claim that my home office is my actual place of work? and on that basis claim the civil service mileage and subsistence the expense of have to travel to site?
 
No. The pharmaceutical company office will be deemed your place of work when you work there and your home office when you work there.

Have you seen the Revenue correspondence on this?
 
Paddy199 said:
No. The pharmaceutical company office will be deemed your place of work when you work there and your home office when you work there.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. Your home office is your place of work. Being on-site with a customer is a different thing.
 
Revenue have provided guidance on this - See Example 5 - it is relevant i think.
[broken link removed]
 
Thanks Sol28... It seems a clear NO from that guidance.

Ok is there any reason why I can't go down the company car route?

Off course I'm going to have to pay BIK.

If this is an option... Is it OK for the company to pay for all fuel, tax, insurance, tolls and car maintenance? and can I claim back any incurred VAT?
 
GreenMan said:
Thanks Sol28... It seems a clear NO from that guidance.

Ok is there any reason why I can't go down the company car route?

Off course I'm going to have to pay BIK.

If this is an option... Is it OK for the company to pay for all fuel, tax, insurance, tolls and car maintenance? and can I claim back any incurred VAT?
Click to expand...

It's certainly an option but likely to be quite a costly one - you'd be paying tax on 30% of the original cost of the car.
 
I actually think @paddy199 is closer to what the Revenue want to impose on the self employed.

It will of course be remarkable if this line of thinking is imposed on the Public Sector who enjoy mileage and subsistence on what would be a more favourable interpretation. I am sure the PS Unions would be pleased with a narrowing interpretation of the place of work.

I will ask my TD to put down a Parliamentary Question on this and see what the reconciliation of this logic is.
 
WizardDr said:
I actually think @paddy199 is closer to what the Revenue want to impose on the self employed.

It will of course be remarkable if this line of thinking is imposed on the Public Sector who enjoy mileage and subsistence on what would be a more favourable interpretation. I am sure the PS Unions would be pleased with a narrowing interpretation of the place of work.

I will ask my TD to put down a Parliamentary Question on this and see what the reconciliation of this logic is.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been any change in the logic here, or the case law that it's based on...
 
So I am imagining that the Revenue have NOT moved to change the guidance. Yet practitioners that I have talked to say that the defining of the place of work should of course apply equally to the PS. Given that case law supports this, you must concur surely.
 
WizardDr said:
So I am imagining that the Revenue have NOT moved to change the guidance.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not sure what this sentence means?! Are you making a statement or asking me a question in reply? What Revenue has done, as is quite clear you read the linked tax briefing, is to CLARIFY the guidance in light of an observed trend from audit outcomes.

WizardDr said:
Yet practitioners that I have talked to say that the defining of the place of work should of course apply equally to the PS. Given that case law supports this, you must concur surely.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm still baffled, in what way does the same definition of the place of work not apply to the PS? As a PS office holder I have to report to a particular Govt office, and when I am required to attend elsewhere in the performance of my duties I am entitled to be reimbursed tax free. As is any employee in the same circumstances (or if they wish they can submit a claim under S.114 for expenses incurred in employment, in which case any reimbursement they have received must be taxed as income).
 
WizardDr is creating a view of PS conditions of employment that is quite incorrect. A public servant has an official place of work; where a public servant lives is his or her own concern except in relation to travel expenses. If a public servant is required to travel for work purposes, travel expenses are paid either from the work address or the home address, whichever is cheaper for the employer.

[I thought we had a moratorium on PS bashing here.]
 
Any employee with a set place of employment gets mileage and subsistence be they in the PS or not.

The issue seems to be that in cases of contractors who appear to be "employees" of the principle rather than the intermediary,
 
Sol28 said:
Revenue have provided guidance on this - See Example 5 - it is relevant i think.
[broken link removed]
Click to expand...
Example 5 states that the contractors used to work solely at the customer location but now works from home by choice. This is not the case with the OP.
GreenMan said:
Thanks Sol28... It seems a clear NO from that guidance.

Ok is there any reason why I can't go down the company car route?

Off course I'm going to have to pay BIK.

If this is an option... Is it OK for the company to pay for all fuel, tax, insurance, tolls and car maintenance? and can I claim back any incurred VAT?
Click to expand...

I would avoid the company car route. I would also look for written guidance from Revenue as to whether the 200 mile round trip is allowable. If it is then the cost of your overnight stay should also be allowable.
 
Purple said:
I would also look for written guidance from Revenue as to whether the 200 mile round trip is allowable.
Click to expand...

Based on recent form, they will merely tell him it isn't allowable. If he wants a meaningful answer, he will need to decide for himself, in conjunction with his advisors, whether his circumstances fit the criteria and how far he is prepared to go to defend this position, if/when challenged by Revenue.
 
@mandelbrot - what exactly did you not understand?

@padraigb

Merely saying that retrospective change by Revenue on contractors should apply to ALL. You are right that this would be a change for Public Servants. This is why the mileage rate paid to Public Sector is not challenged by Revenue as it would be inconsistent.

Your defence of public servants conditions is admirable - I am merely saying that Revenue need to be consistent - which they are not.
 
@WizardDr.

Are you trying to suggest the employees who clearly have a fixed place of work are not entitled to mileage and subsistence when required to travel from that fixed place of work.

An employee who lives in Cork with a Dublin based job is NOT entitled to claim expenses for travel between the two cities.

An employee who lives in Cork with a Cork based job is entitled to claim expenses if required to travel to Dublin for work. That applies to most employees in the public and private sector.

The issue with the contractors is that when they work for one Principal "employer" either directly or through an intermediary there is an issue determining where they are based. They in some cases are "defacto" employees of the Principal.

I should add that I am of the view that a contractor who has established a base, in my example a guy living in Cork who is works for a Dublin based employer for 2 years has a dublin base. If he started to work for a Galway co, I would say he had a dublin base and travel ect would have been claimed.

If he had to go to London, Paris, New York all allowable.

Where the contractor had multiple clients again I would look at where his base was formed. If all his work was in Dublin but he lived in Cork then there was an issue.

I agree with you that Revenue need to be consistent but the argument has to be the same.
 
WizardDr said:
Your defence of public servants conditions is admirable - I am merely saying that Revenue need to be consistent - which they are not.
Click to expand...

Where's the evidence for this?

Is there any case you can point to where public servants are allowed to claim for travel to/from their principal place of work?
 
WizardDr said:
@mandelbrot - what exactly did you not understand?

@padraigb

Merely saying that retrospective change by Revenue on contractors should apply to ALL. You are right that this would be a change for Public Servants. This is why the mileage rate paid to Public Sector is not challenged by Revenue as it would be inconsistent.

Your defence of public servants conditions is admirable - I am merely saying that Revenue need to be consistent - which they are not.
Click to expand...

I'm confused about:
1. What you're asserting has changed, and
2. What distinction you believe there is between public servants and regular employees.

I don't seem to be alone either, based on other posters' comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top