Plumber wins employment rights

[Darren at Fox-Bartfield]

BBC

Hmm, the BBC says he was paying tax on a self employed basis.

The BBC have enough problems determining who's employed and self employed/freelance!!

[chopper]

Ltd, it said.

If he is Limited, then HMRC could start knocking on his door for IR35 taxes, and it would be well deserved. (If he's Limited Company, then I reckon unlikely he is paying full employment taxes)

Let him get his statutory sick pay and a token holiday pay. It'll be a drop in the ocean compared to the IR35 nightmare he could be about to endure, backcharged for six years.

What a gibbon.

What it should flag up is that workers within IR35 should get 'some' rights.

[chopper]

I suppose it is worth reading the judgement in full

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...rs-v-smith.pdf

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The BBC have enough problems determining who's employed and self employed/freelance!!

Quite an important distinction though. If this guy does use a Ltd then he may regret ever bringing this case...

[barrydidit]

Hmm, the BBC says he was paying tax on a self employed basis.

lol ok, it was different this morning. I expect there's a SWAT team tooling up in HMRC ready to pay him a visit.

[seeourbee]

I wouldn't hire his lawyer to make a cup of tea !

[pr1]

just to be pedantic he was actually a sparky

just to be pedantic he wasn't

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...rs-v-smith.pdf

The background facts
4. Mr Smith is a plumber. He carried out plumbing work for PP between 25 August
2005 and 28 April 2011.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I suppose it is worth reading the judgement in full

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...rs-v-smith.pdf

Seems to confirm he was self employed.

I can see the argument that he was self employed on the basis of the points outlined. But this kind of inbetween "worker" status for self employed people seems odd to me.

It does also seem to reinforce the notion that as far as the three main pillars of employment status are concerned, all three need to be shown to make the case for employment. In this case there looks like there was a degree of control, possibly not much direction in how he actually did the job, no RoS but it looks like MOO was the ultimate deciding factor that he was self employed.

I look forward to seeing what happens when IR35 caught public sector workers start bringing similar cases.

[pr1]

HMRC will be licking their lips

He paid his wife £4,680 per year for minimal secretarial duties and also claimed a sum of £520 per year to reflect the use of a room in his home as his office. He also set off sums for accountancy charges, insurance, telephone and internet, tools and equipment hire and motor vehicle expenses. Against receipts of £130,753 Mr Smith set off expenses totalling £82,454.

[chopper]

So I don't think he was Limited Company

"Mr Smith accepted that whilst working with PP he believed the arrangement was
that he was self-employed. He was registered with the Construction Industry
Scheme. He engaged an accountant to prepare income and expenditure accounts
throughout the period of his relationship with PP. He filed tax returns on the basis
that he was self-employed. He was registered for VAT and presented monthly
invoices to PP for VAT."


So probably not a complete gibbon then. But potentially huge ramifications for other CIS workers.