Employment intermediaries travel expense provisions: examples relating to particular employments
In these examples the intermediary isn’t an MSC, nor would be if section 61B(1)(c) ITEPA were disregarded.
Where a worker is engaged through an employment intermediary, and would be regarded as an employee if engaged directly by the client, then if they are travelling to the same site for all, or almost all, of the engagement, they won’t be able to claim relief for their travel costs. This is also the case for temporary workers engaged directly or on a fixed term temporary contract through an agency.
Further information - [EIM32132].
Martin is employed as a lorry driver through an employment intermediary and would be regarded as an employee if engaged directly by the client. He picks up his lorry from a depot each morning, where he also receives instructions about his delivery locations for the day. His attendance at that depot at the start and finish of each shift may be brief.
However no relief is available for the cost of travel between his home and the depot. The depot is the base from which the duties of his employment are performed and is a permanent workplace. He’s likely to be able to claim relief on his travel to make deliveries, as this would normally be considered travelling in the performance of his duties.
Further information - [EIM32160].
Dave is a service engineer who’s engaged through an employment intermediary, working for a utility company and would be an employee of the utility company if engaged directly. He moves from place to place during the day carrying out repairs to domestic boilers. He receives details of the locations he needs to attend in a day whilst at home, or whilst travelling.
Dave’s work is itinerant; he holds a travelling appointment and is travelling in the performance of his duties. He is able to claim relief on all of his business travelling expenses.
Further information - [EIM32366].