Question For Agency Drivers

[conor]

Noremac:
If you work through an agency at the same client and location all the time then this does rule out tax relief on travel expenses as it is a normal place of work.

However, no matter if through an intermediary or not, there is still the concept of a temporary workplace. It is a fairly complex area, but if you are not working continuously at a client then it can be argued that each place you go to is a temporary workplace.

An example might be an agency driver that works fairly ad-hoc and goes to many different clients, maybe for a week here and there and shifts are to a large extent confirmed the day before.

If shifts are confirmed the day before with absolutely no guarantee of any hours, then it can also be argued that you are not in continuous employment, because the agency could decide not to call you at any time. If you were to be put on a rota where you had an expectation of staying on for a period of time, this would effectively mean that you have a normal place of work and no tax relief would be possible on travel.

This is my take on it anyway. I have claimed tax back on travel for a few years. I have had the spreadsheets ready to submit to HMRC, but they have never requested them.

HMRC state that if you work in a defined geographical area, any travel from home to the edge of that area, and back again, is ordinary commuting and you cannot claim the costs of that part of your journeys.

Also;
gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … l/eim32130

Where a worker provides his or her services through an agency and the agency legislation in Section 44 ITEPA 2003 applies, each agency contract is treated as a separate employment, see ESM2000 onwards. Therefore, where there is only one workplace for an agency contract that workplace will be a permanent workplace for that employment.

The example that HMRC supply, might look familiar to how you work on agency…

Travel expenses: travel for necessary attendance: fixed term appointments and agency workers: agency workers: example
gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … l/eim32131

An employee is an accounts clerk who gets all her work through an employment agency. She rarely takes a job that lasts more than 2 weeks. She travels from home direct to the premises of the employment agency’s client. No deduction is due for her travel expenses between home and client’s premises.

Each job is a separate contract of employment, see EIM32130. Each of the client’s premises is a permanent workplace because her attendance at those premises will be for all of the period for which she will hold that employment, see EIM32125.

And for the OP this is why the mileage claims are illegal from the same link above.

From 6 April 2016, new tax provisions for the treatment of travel and subsistence expenses for workers who personally provide services through ‘employment intermediaries’ apply. The employment intermediaries travel expense provisions mean that each engagement undertaken by a worker who personally provides their services through an employment intermediary will be considered a separate employment for the purposes of travel and subsistence. This will mean that generally no relief will be given for home-to-work travel costs and associated subsistence.

So pretty much everyone who has been claiming travel expenses from home to work either as a self employed driver or an agency driver has been claiming them against HMRCs rules. And just because they’ve not said anything doesn’t mean you haven’t.

[njl]

dozy:
I’d not think just this scheme on agency will get the tax man after you , I’m agency paye & get letters on a regular basis telling me I owe x,y or z

I wouldn’t worry about paying back Z.

youtube.com/watch?v=5lL1ypndnWA

[rjan]

Roymondo:

Conor:
It’s illegal if they’re putting you in for mileage. Even if you were properly self employed HMRC treat travel between your home and the first place of work of the day and the last place of work of the day and back to home as ordinary commuting and it is not claimable.

While it’s correct to say that ordinary commuting is not allowable against tax, HMRC don’t use that definition. They quite clearly state that travel to/from a permanent workplace is not allowable while travel to/from a temporary workplace (as in most agency type work) most certainly is.

gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … l/eim32055

There is of course a distinction between a temporary workplace in a permanent employment, and a permanent workplace in a temporary employment.

This is because the question is not whether the workplace is your permanent place of work in the rhythm of your usual occupation as a casual worker.

The question is whether the workplace is permanent in a particular employment.

If you are employed by the day, then you are in a new employment each day. All your workplaces are permanent in those employments, and the journey to them is your “normal commute”.

gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … l/eim32135

[noremac]

I respect your view on this Conor. I am just telling it the way I see it. Agency work is not all the same. A lot of agency work does not take the form of being sent to a client for say 2 weeks (guaranteed). The agency may say we have had a call and there may be 2 weeks work, but the shifts are only confirmed the day before and the client reserves the right to cancel up to an hour before a shift starts. It is difficult to see how such an arrangement is continuous employment or anything other than for a temporary purpose. You have quoted from a section regarding fixed term contracts. I don’t think any agency driving work I have done has taken the form of a fixed term contract.

[rjan]

Noremac:
I respect your view on this Conor. … You have quoted from a section regarding fixed term contracts. I don’t think any agency driving work I have done has taken the form of a fixed term contract.

But I haven’t quoted from such a section. The link I give refers to “employment intermediaries”.

The practical effect seems to be that only those in continuous employment with a permanent workplace, can claim travel expenses for travel to a temporary workplace which is different from that permanent workplace.

For those who work casually by the day, the actual workplace is always the permanent workplace. It is only their employment which is temporary - the workplace they must attend under that temporary employment, is a permanent workplace (i.e. permanent for the duration of the employment).

gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … al/esm5590

[noremac]

Rjan:
But I haven’t quoted from such a section. The link I give refers to “employment intermediaries”.

The practical effect seems to be that only those in continuous employment with a permanent workplace, can claim travel expenses for travel to a temporary workplace which is different from that permanent workplace.

For those who work casually by the day, the actual workplace is always the permanent workplace. It is only their employment which is temporary - the workplace they must attend under that temporary employment, is a permanent workplace (i.e. permanent for the duration of the employment).

gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … al/esm5590

Just to be clear I am not “claiming expenses”, I am claiming tax relief on travel and subsistence costs. I pay the costs myself. I am also not working through an employment intermediary, but for an employment business under a contract for services, so the changes made in 2016 are not relevant to the situation I am talking about. As I have said, I have explained the way I see it for a specific situation. Other situations exist and you can seek clarification from HMRC if you wish as it is a reasonably complex area. The examples do all seem to talk about contracts lasting x number of weeks or months. There are no examples of single days that I have read so far. I have claimed without issue for a few years as I have said. I am not hiding anything I am just telling it the way it is.

[conor]

Noremac:
As I have said, I have explained the way I see it for a specific situation. Other situations exist and you can seek clarification from HMRC if you wish as it is a reasonably complex area. The examples do all seem to talk about contracts lasting x number of weeks or months. There are no examples of single days that I have read so far. I have claimed without issue for a few years as I have said. I am not hiding anything I am just telling it the way it is.

Read your contract of employment with your agency. Virtually all of them say you’re only employed for the duration of the booking therefore even if its for just one day you are travelling to an employer for 100% of the duration of that employment.
just because you’ve claimed without issue for years doesn’t mean you’re not doing anything wrong. It just means HMRC haven’t investigated you.

[noremac]

Conor:
Read your contract of employment with your agency. Virtually all of them say you’re only employed for the duration of the booking therefore even if its for just one day you are travelling to an employer for 100% of the duration of that employment.
just because you’ve claimed without issue for years doesn’t mean you’re not doing anything wrong. It just means HMRC haven’t investigated you.

My interpretation is that the temporary workplace remains a temporary workplace because a single day is not a “period of continuous work”. The workplace counts as temporary on both counts of less than 24 months duration and the task carried out being for a “temporary purpose”, ie driving.

Simply as a matter of fact, HMRC hasn’t got in touch with me about this to date. I don’t take this as endorsement or otherwise of my position. It perhaps does indicate that there isn’t an appetite to investigate every submission made to them, which isn’t too surprising I would say.

Your suggestions about geographical area are not relevant to my situation as the duties of my employment are not defined by reference to an area. You may have googled and found this extract to support your argument, but really perhaps this would only apply to someone like a travelling salesman or someone along those lines. In this case travel to the outer edge of this area would be normal commuting. Once inside this would be business miles. I don’t see the relevance frankly.

[winseer]

Unless one is swamped under for work - I can’t see Ltd ever becoming worth it to someone already on PAYE getting holiday pay @ 12.07% etc.

Dunno about Sick Pay though. Are there any agencies that truly pay it, rather than just point you at DWP and give you a hefty shove to go get SSP?

[rjan]

Noremac:

Rjan:
…

Just to be clear I am not “claiming expenses”, I am claiming tax relief on travel and subsistence costs. I pay the costs myself. I am also not working through an employment intermediary, but for an employment business under a contract for services, so the changes made in 2016 are not relevant to the situation I am talking about.

Wrong again I’m afraid:

HMRC:
The changes affect workers personally providing services to clients through an ‘employment intermediary’ [ESM5550], which could be:
an agency
a recruitment or employment business
an umbrella company
a managed service company (MSC)
a personal service company (PSC)

From: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … al/esm5510

The rules are quite clear that what you are doing is (or is capable of being treated as) working through an employment intermediary.

Noremac:
As I have said, I have explained the way I see it for a specific situation. Other situations exist and you can seek clarification from HMRC if you wish as it is a reasonably complex area. The examples do all seem to talk about contracts lasting x number of weeks or months. There are no examples of single days that I have read so far. I have claimed without issue for a few years as I have said. I am not hiding anything I am just telling it the way it is.

Again, false:

HMRC:
The employment intermediaries travel expense provisions mean that each engagement undertaken by a worker who personally provides their services through an employment intermediary will be considered a separate employment for the purposes of travel and subsistence.

From: gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual … l/eim32125

Each engagement will be treated as its own employment, so if you are engaged daily by an employment intermediary, you are treated as being in a new employment daily.

That is also merely equivalent to how casual workers are treated when hired direct by the employer - their employment lasts for the length of the shift, and each shift is a new employment.

You may well have claimed for years under self-assessment, but it always comes down to whether the hammer falls and a tax investigation happens, and all those deductions for pink elephants and unicorns have to be justified to a tax inspector.

[winseer]

You’d think that “Travel Expenses” and “Meal Out Allowances” would be valid for actual Transport workers - but no alas.

I once got a back tax demand for 10 months worth of fuel and meal receipts I’d put in when my so-called “PAYE” employer claiming from HMRC something that apparently I had no right to do.

I lose of course - not them. They just shut down, and re-open under a different company name.

…You think that our illustrious MPs can claim for everything from Taxi fares to Fitted Kitchens despite not being a cabby or installations worker…

The so-called “Westminster Expenses Scandal” following the credit crunch - might have changed something, but no.
It all got swept under the carpet.
Transport workers STILL cannot claim their commute costs, whilst MPs who do bugger-all for each block of (now, “up-to”) five years between elections - can claim for anything and everything.

We won’t solve our political differences in this country until we purge Westminster of ALL the incumbent parties.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that Labour or Tory don’t get to win future elections - just that the future government WON’T consist of the irremovable lot from the LAST Parliament!
As someone who “always votes”, I will make it a point to always vote against the incumbent now for the rest of my days - even if I voted for them beforehand!

[noremac]

Rjan:
The rules are quite clear that what you are doing is (or is capable of being treated as) working through an employment intermediary.

You seem to have missed the point that the rules regarding each engagement counting as a separate employment applied to employment businesses before being widened to all employment intermediaries in 2016. That is why the change isn’t relevant.

I have explained my interpretation and I have no intention of defending my position when you are making assertions but not justifying them, as I have done.

Your previous post suggests you don’t understand the difference between claiming expenses and claiming tax relief on incurred costs. In these circumstances it seems difficult to enter into a sensible discussion in any case.

[rjan]

Noremac:

Rjan:
The rules are quite clear that what you are doing is (or is capable of being treated as) working through an employment intermediary.

You seem to have missed the point that the rules regarding each engagement counting as a separate employment applied to employment businesses before being widened to all employment intermediaries in 2016. That is why the change isn’t relevant.

The difference was that if you had a so-called overarching employment contract with the employment business, then you were entitled to treat each workplace as temporary, and it was on that basis that the reliefs were claimed.

TaxAdviserMagazine:
[under the new intermediary rules from 2016] each engagement the worker undertakes will be a separate employment for the purposes of obtaining relief for travel and subsistence; that is the overarching contract is ineffective.

From: taxadvisermagazine.com/arti … 80%93-year

I have explained my interpretation and I have no intention of defending my position when you are making assertions but not justifying them, as I have done.

You say I have not justified my assertions? I have in fact provided a clear source and verbatim excerpt for each and every claim I have made so far, you silly person.

Your previous post suggests you don’t understand the difference between claiming expenses and claiming tax relief on incurred costs. In these circumstances it seems difficult to enter into a sensible discussion in any case.

Or the more sensible interpretation is that I said “claiming expenses” off-the-cuff to mean claiming such tax relief on that portion of your gross income. Clearly, the taxman does not pay your fuel or meal bill outright, does he?

It’s entirely up to you how fictional your self-assessment is and how far you push the boat out. In the extreme, people rob banks and get away with it.

But not getting caught isn’t the same as operating lawfully in principle, and the rules appear to be quite clear that casual and agency drivers (properly so described, including all those who try to employ sophistry and fictions to disguise their true station) are not entitled to these reliefs.

[noremac]

Rjan:
But not getting caught isn’t the same as operating lawfully in principle, and the rules appear to be quite clear that casual and agency drivers (properly so described, including all those who try to employ sophistry and fictions to disguise their true station) are not entitled to these reliefs.

I would further add that a lorry driver’s subsistence costs are mostly justified by the fact that he is off site all day rather than on whether the start and end point is a temporary workplace. No doubt you will come up with some reason why this would not be allowed too, no doubt with the aid of your good friend google / ask / bing.

[rjan]

Noremac:

Rjan:
But not getting caught isn’t the same as operating lawfully in principle, and the rules appear to be quite clear that casual and agency drivers (properly so described, including all those who try to employ sophistry and fictions to disguise their true station) are not entitled to these reliefs.

I would further add that a lorry driver’s subsistence costs are mostly justified by the fact that he is off site all day rather than on whether the start and end point is a temporary workplace. No doubt you will come up with some reason why this would not be allowed too, no doubt with the aid of your good friend google / ask / bing.

Yes I would come up with a similar argument, being that the office wallah doesn’t get tax relief on the butties he takes to work or the fast food he buys at lunchtime, so why should the lorry driver?

We have a system of taxation in which we all pay our share. The average worker doesn’t need to involve themselves in collecting receipts or taking advantage of a wide array of reliefs or filling in tax returns. He simply goes to work and pays the cashier from whom he buys his lunch.

The only reason such reliefs exist, is so the rich can eat in an expensive restaurant at lunch for £100 a course and call it a business expense, and to keep the masses onside they maybe give you a pound off your Subway sandwich.

[noremac]

Rjan:

Noremac:

Rjan:
But not getting caught isn’t the same as operating lawfully in principle, and the rules appear to be quite clear that casual and agency drivers (properly so described, including all those who try to employ sophistry and fictions to disguise their true station) are not entitled to these reliefs.

I would further add that a lorry driver’s subsistence costs are mostly justified by the fact that he is off site all day rather than on whether the start and end point is a temporary workplace. No doubt you will come up with some reason why this would not be allowed too, no doubt with the aid of your good friend google / ask / bing.

Yes I would come up with a similar argument, being that the office wallah doesn’t get tax relief on the butties he takes to work or the fast food he buys at lunchtime, so why should the lorry driver?

We have a system of taxation in which we all pay our share. The average worker doesn’t need to involve themselves in collecting receipts or taking advantage of a wide array of reliefs or filling in tax returns. He simply goes to work and pays the cashier from whom he buys his lunch.

The only reason such reliefs exist, is so the rich can eat in an expensive restaurant at lunch for £100 a course and call it a business expense, and to keep the masses onside they maybe give you a pound off your Subway sandwich.

Possibly because the lorry driver often times won’t have a refrigerator in which to place his sarnies, neither a microwave or a kettle. He buys out for these reasons. I notice now that instead of a legal argument you are coming up with a moral one. This is not a transfer of wealth by the way, it is just a few pennies a day compensation for the conditions of work. The items still have to be bought, it is just a tax relief. However, there is no moral justification necessary, it is allowed end of story.

[noremac]

Rjan:
a pound off your Subway sandwich.

I never go to Subway btw.

[rjan]

Noremac:

Rjan:
a pound off your Subway sandwich.

I never go to Subway btw.

And when I mow the lawn, I like to go around the edges first.

[winseer]

Noremac:

Rjan:
a pound off your Subway sandwich.

I never go to Subway btw.

I want the full tenner off, or I’ll just stick to supermarket food thanks.

[rjan]

Noremac:

Rjan:
…

Possibly because the lorry driver often times won’t have a refrigerator in which to place his sarnies, neither a microwave or a kettle. He buys out for these reasons.

A refrigerator! Heaven forbid your cheese and onion butties should be room temperature! And what ever happened to the flask?

Don’t get me wrong though. I buy out. But I pay the normal price.

I’m marginally more sympathetic to the man on a night out who loses his evening meal at home, but I’d argue that’s for the employer to pay for as part of the costs of his mode of operation, not for the worker to be excepted from taxes.

I notice now that instead of a legal argument you are coming up with a moral one.

I thought the same when I originally read your post and you talked of “justification”.

This is not a transfer of wealth by the way, it is just a few pennies a day compensation for the conditions of work. The items still have to be bought, it is just a tax relief. However, there is no moral justification necessary, it is allowed end of story.

The “few pennies a day compensation” is for the employer to pay for, not other taxpayers.

And (to go back to talking legally) these reliefs are quite clearly no longer allowed for anyone who is plainly an agency worker, regardless of their contractual shenanigans. I’ve provided clear evidence for the law in this area already.

It’s up to you what fiddles you pull, but in law it’s tax evasion plain and simple, and you’re only ever one investigation away from losing all the proceeds.