New guidance on commuting expenses for hybrid workers
You probably know that you can’t claim tax relief for the expenses associated with travelling to your usual place of work. However, what is the position if you're a “hybrid” worker? The guidance on this has recently been updated for clarity, so what's the answer?
The rules surrounding which journeys you can and cannot claim tax relief for travel expenses are complex, resulting in HMRC publishing guidance with over 50 examples. As a general rule, there is no tax relief for the cost of a journey which is ordinary commuting or private travel. Ordinary commuting means travel to and from a permanent workplace.
For hybrid workers, a question arises as to whether their home or their office should be considered to be their permanent workplace. The guidance on the tax deductibility of commuting expenses for hybrid workers (those who have the flexibility to choose whether to work from home or in the office) has been updated. This puts beyond doubt that journeys from home to a base office will be ordinary commuting. Therefore, tax relief is not available for such costs.
Note that the situation is different if the homeworking arrangements are not voluntary. For example, if you must work from home as a requirement of your job, you should be able to claim tax relief for expenses incurred travelling to your employer.
Related Topics
-
Gifts of shares to children: direct or via a trust?
You want to give away some shares in your company to help provide an income for your children. Is it better to make a direct gift to them or should you transfer the shares to a trust with your children as beneficiaries?
-
Are work-related benefits for disabled persons tax free?
A loyal employee has suffered a disability and needs special equipment to do her job. If she also uses the equipment in her personal life, will it count as a taxable benefit for her?
-
Were capital losses deductible for income tax?
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) recently considered if an individual was entitled to tax relief for losses when a company he invested in went bust. It ought to have been simple but a refinancing deal complicated matters. What did the FTT decide?