Originally posted by Fred Bloggs
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
HMRC Campaign milestones
The HMRC action on GSK contractors is no doubt going to follow the pattern that they have used elsewhere.
The initial 1500 targets come from lists HMRC has obtained from GSK under their legal powers.
A letter goes to each person.
Some will concede - no questions asked. If so, their names will go on a list looking into 2017/18 and perhaps earlier years.
Some will go back with with an "obviously" outside IR35 set of evidence. These HMRC will concede and mark to look at again in 2019/20.
Some (perhaps most) will go back, with the aid of insurers and advisers, and defend their position. HMRC is likely to sift these in order of gross earners and starting at the top, will grind away. All of these will be on the lists to investigate in 17/18 and earlier and also in 19/20.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View Post
Some will concede - no questions asked. If so, their names will go on a list looking into 2017/18 and perhaps earlier years.
Those contractors who have been continuously accepting extensions for years from the same client will be in dodgy territory.
Every contract needs to be viewed separately."I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...Comment
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post(Though scheme advisers such as yourself appear safe for maybe another decade or so).
I have in the past made a living as a tax planner initially for a couple of well known banks (internal and external) and more latterly with a tax house involved in film, renewables, etc. That ended in 2014.
To the best of my knowledge I have not created, promoted, sold or advised upon any scheme used by contractors and freelancers.
We have certainly not advanced or suggested the use of what HMRC likes to call "loan busters" nor any "scheme to solve a scheme".
If you mean that we are capable of deconstructing schemes, ancient and modern, applying a degree of interpretation to them and suggesting ways in which they might be argued with a disbelieving HMRC, then we are guilty.
In doing so, we also have a strategy which looks to prevent clients from getting involved in schemes in the future. Do we advise on that? Yes, we do.
Doing the above means that we have considerable knowledge on pretty all aspects of contractor life as it relates to finance, legal, tax, accounting, etc. Do we advise on those? Yes we do.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostOnly for the same contract I would think.
Those contractors who have been continuously accepting extensions for years from the same client will be in dodgy territory.
Every contract needs to be viewed separately.
Speaking with HMRC here, the view coming out is that the contract is essentially window dressing and that most (or in HMRC speak -all) contractors actually do the same thing for years and it's only the words around them that change.
This assumption, rather like the reverse (i.e. contractors think that the words of a contract will protect them), is very hard to shift.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostPerhaps not.
Speaking with HMRC here, the view coming out is that the contract is essentially window dressing and that most (or in HMRC speak -all) contractors actually do the same thing for years and it's only the words around them that change.
This assumption, rather like the reverse (i.e. contractors think that the words of a contract will protect them), is very hard to shift.Comment
-
Correct and that's not an issue to HMRC if they think they are going to get something out of it.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by LadyPenelope View PostThen surely they would have to investigate the working practices of each contractor to prove IR35 status? This would be pretty resource-heavy, even for them, so there would be only be a small percentage of contractors who could be investigated in this way in any given year. Working practices may differ between clients also, depending on the terms of the engagement. It would also have to be corroborated by the client, no?
Look at the numbers.
1500 at GSK.
For at least one year, perhaps closer to two.
Average earnings £70k?
Average tax paid outside IR35, perhaps 20% = £14k
Average tax due inside IR35, perhaps 35% = £24.5k
Say £10k pa difference.
Not all 1500 will be caught but HMRC policy says 1350 will.
That's £13.5m.
Multiply GSK by 113 to get to HMRC's number.
Soon you're talking real money.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostPerhaps not.
Speaking with HMRC here, the view coming out is that the contract is essentially window dressing and that most (or in HMRC speak -all) contractors actually do the same thing for years and it's only the words around them that change.
This assumption, rather like the reverse (i.e. contractors think that the words of a contract will protect them), is very hard to shift.
My understanding is that HMRC would have to take a contractor to tribunal for each engagement (single or multiple renewals), they could not go to a single tribunal for different engagements across different clients. Is that correct?Make Mercia Great Again!Comment
-
I've a felling, if GSK is anything like another large pharma in the NW, there could be quite a few people there with 4 years plus behind them.
A very brief search on linked in and the first three people come in at 2 years 2 months x 2 and 3 years 6 months.
Very tasty for HMRCLast edited by northernladuk; 28 August 2019, 13:11.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Business & Personal Protection for Contractors Today 13:58
- ‘Four interest rate cuts in 2025’ not echoed by contractor advisers Today 08:24
- ‘Why Should We Hire You?’ How to answer as an IT contractor Yesterday 09:30
- Even IT contractors connect with 'New Year, New Job.' But… Jan 6 09:28
- Which IT contractor skills will be top five in 2025? Jan 2 09:08
- Secondary NI threshold sinking to £5,000: a limited company director’s explainer Dec 24 09:51
- Reeves sets Spring Statement 2025 for March 26th Dec 23 09:18
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
Comment