employed/self employed - IR 35 liable?
+ Reply to Thread
Posts 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,629
    Thanks (Given)
    24
    Thanks (Received)
    288
    Likes (Given)
    69
    Likes (Received)
    538

    Default employed/self employed - IR 35 liable?

    From a professional magazine.

    The "Edward" is Edward Troup, who is HMRC's Executive Chairman, (whatever that means).

    The Taylor Review

    Edward politely declined to answer questions about the continuing erosion of the tax base through the growth of the gig economy, following the government’s decision not to reintroduce its Budget 2017 proposals to increase the NICs payable by self-employed workers. He said that they were a policy matter for the Treasury. I asked Edward about the government’s response to the Taylor Review. Edward said that HMRC and the Treasury would respond in relation to tax, but ‘to the extent those are policy questions, those are, indeed, for the Treasury. To the extent that they go to the rather tricky issue of what is the definition of an employed or a self-employed person, then this is very clearly a matter for HMRC. (The timing of any response is a matter for the Treasury.)’

    ‘And in terms of personal service companies, we have the rules in IR35, the scope of which has been extended, or rather, the burden of which has been extended by shifting the responsibility for the tax payment to the engager, in the case of the public sector. It is clearly necessary for HMRC to ensure compliance with rules that are designed to ensure that an individual, who is for practical purposes an employee, should pay the same tax as someone who is actually employed. To the extent that the opportunity offers itself, we will be looking for ways of ensuring that what parliament intended, in terms of collecting tax on employment, is collected. We’ll be working with the Treasury to look at areas where there is disguised self-employment, or where the benefits of employment are being obtained without the amount of tax which parliament has set out as being applicable to employees being paid.’

  2. #2

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    7
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    From a professional magazine.

    The "Edward" is Edward Troup, who is HMRC's Executive Chairman, (whatever that means).

    The Taylor Review

    Edward politely declined to answer questions about the continuing erosion of the tax base through the growth of the gig economy, following the government’s decision not to reintroduce its Budget 2017 proposals to increase the NICs payable by self-employed workers. He said that they were a policy matter for the Treasury. I asked Edward about the government’s response to the Taylor Review. Edward said that HMRC and the Treasury would respond in relation to tax, but ‘to the extent those are policy questions, those are, indeed, for the Treasury. To the extent that they go to the rather tricky issue of what is the definition of an employed or a self-employed person, then this is very clearly a matter for HMRC. (The timing of any response is a matter for the Treasury.)’

    ‘And in terms of personal service companies, we have the rules in IR35, the scope of which has been extended, or rather, the burden of which has been extended by shifting the responsibility for the tax payment to the engager, in the case of the public sector. It is clearly necessary for HMRC to ensure compliance with rules that are designed to ensure that an individual, who is for practical purposes an employee, should pay the same tax as someone who is actually employed. To the extent that the opportunity offers itself, we will be looking for ways of ensuring that what parliament intended, in terms of collecting tax on employment, is collected. We’ll be working with the Treasury to look at areas where there is disguised self-employment, or where the benefits of employment are being obtained without the amount of tax which parliament has set out as being applicable to employees being paid.’
    Is he suggesting "... ensuring what Parliament intended..." means he can override what the Judicial system says?

  3. #3

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Lance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    home
    Posts
    1,596
    Thanks (Given)
    16
    Thanks (Received)
    93
    Likes (Given)
    160
    Likes (Received)
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrownOwl View Post
    Is he suggesting "... ensuring what Parliament intended..." means he can override what the Judicial system says?
    The judicial system cannot be overridden.

    Parliament writes the law, the judiciary interpret it. If parliament don't like the interpretation then that's tough. They should have written it properly in the first place.
    See You Next Tuesday

  4. #4

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    17,958
    Thanks (Given)
    477
    Thanks (Received)
    1034
    Likes (Given)
    4173
    Likes (Received)
    2767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance View Post
    The judicial system cannot be overridden.

    Parliament writes the law, the judiciary interpret it. If parliament don't like the interpretation then that's tough. They should have written it properly in the first place.
    That is it in a nutshell.

  5. #5

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    1,629
    Thanks (Given)
    24
    Thanks (Received)
    288
    Likes (Given)
    69
    Likes (Received)
    538

    Default

    The whole article is quite incendiary.

    I can't really reproduce it without breaching copyright but it's in Tax Journal.

    I think they offer a trial period.

    Might be worth using that to read the whole thing.

    Just remember that I cannot be held responsible for any burst arteries or other cardio events.

  6. #6

    Godlike

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,309
    Thanks (Given)
    70
    Thanks (Received)
    385
    Likes (Given)
    571
    Likes (Received)
    1674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webberg View Post
    The whole article is quite incendiary.

    I can't really reproduce it without breaching copyright but it's in Tax Journal.

    I think they offer a trial period.

    Might be worth using that to read the whole thing.

    Just remember that I cannot be held responsible for any burst arteries or other cardio events.
    Nothing new there. It's what they do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.