Originally posted by malvolio
- 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!
5% expense allowance
Collapse
X
-
-
How much do you understand about the Intermediaries Legislation? If the answer is "Huh?" you need to go do some more reading...Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioHow much do you understand about the Intermediaries Legislation? If the answer is "Huh?" you need to go do some more reading...Comment
-
Thud - again...
If you are caught by IR35 (big IF, but some people seem to be determined to pay as much tax as possible for no reason), your deemed taxable income is set at 95% of your gross less a small amount of deductable expenses (mostly pensions and legal/accounting fees). Hence HMG kindly allows you 5% of your effective gross to pay for all the permie benefits you aren't getting because you're a contractor despite them treating you as an employee, except you can't actually use being caught by IR35 in an EAT case to claim employment rights (although I know some people want to try that one out one day, the so-called Nuclear Option).
So you can see how sensible and coherent it all is, can't you.
Of course the new MSC legislation, by a combination of bad advice, poor planning and incoherently drafted legislation, has rendered IR35 largely irrelevant now, since every man and his dog will want you to pay full PAYE and NICs just in case Hector goes after them for it under the debt transfer rules. Even ATSCo, who really should know better, are getting on that bandwagon now, and if the organisation that claims to represent recruitment agencies doesn't (or won't, more likely) understand the rules, what chance have we got?
Thank God for the PCG, says I - who are trying to bring some order to this chaos.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioIt's bollocks, the rules are quite clear and you can use any real accountant you like, small or large, without fear.
The full definition is at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-st...ftchapter9.pdf if you're really interested, and you would need to meet all four of the main criteria to fail the MSC test. Unless you're stupid enough to be running with an ex-MSC's scheme, you won't.
It basically says that you are an MSC if your company sells your services, pay the majority of the income arising to you in a manner that gives rise to less of a liability than if you were an employee (so far all of you who treat yourself as not caught by IR35 are caught) and an MSC provider is involved with your company.
Being involved with your company includes benefitting financially on an ongoing basis from the provision of your services (could include receiving a fee) or influencing the way money is paid from the company (could include tax advice re remuneration structure).
So far anyone who treats themselves as not caught by IR35 and has an accountant who they pay is potentially caught.
But you cannot be an MSC Provider if you merely provide accountancy services in a professional capacity.
So now it all boils down to the interpretation of that phrase. Apparently the word "merely" is crucial.
The way I see it, all ex-MSC providers could claim to be merely providing accountancy services but equally HMRC could argue that any accountancy firm has crossed the undefined line to be not merely providing accountancy services.
For example, if you ask your accountant to recommend you a bank and he does, is that merely providing accountancy services? What about if you ask him for an invoice template? Or run a credit check on a potential client?
As accountants are we now obliged to be entirely unhelpful in order not to overstep the mark into non-accountancy services?
I am naturally inclined to agree that we are not all caught but I think it is incorrect to say that the rules are clear. They are deliberately vague with disproportionate penalties designed to bully people into submission.Comment
-
Originally posted by THEPUMABeing involved with your company includes benefitting financially on an ongoing basis from the provision of your services (could include receiving a fee) or influencing the way money is paid from the company (could include tax advice re remuneration structure).
I fear this isn't worth worrying about because it won't be long before they'll go after proper PSCs (whatever that turns out to mean), and we'll all be worrying about that instead.Will work inside IR35. Or for food.Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioThud - again...
If you are caught by IR35 (big IF, but some people seem to be determined to pay as much tax as possible for no reason), your deemed taxable income is set at 95% of your gross less a small amount of deductable expenses (mostly pensions and legal/accounting fees). Hence HMG kindly allows you 5% of your effective gross to pay for all the permie benefits you aren't getting because you're a contractor despite them treating you as an employee, except you can't actually use being caught by IR35 in an EAT case to claim employment rights (although I know some people want to try that one out one day, the so-called Nuclear Option).
So you can see how sensible and coherent it all is, can't you.
Of course the new MSC legislation, by a combination of bad advice, poor planning and incoherently drafted legislation, has rendered IR35 largely irrelevant now, since every man and his dog will want you to pay full PAYE and NICs just in case Hector goes after them for it under the debt transfer rules. Even ATSCo, who really should know better, are getting on that bandwagon now, and if the organisation that claims to represent recruitment agencies doesn't (or won't, more likely) understand the rules, what chance have we got?
Thank God for the PCG, says I - who are trying to bring some order to this chaos.
I'm not sure what you mean about IR35 being rendered irrelevant by every man and his dog wanting contractors to pay full PAYE. Who do you mean, clients or accountants? I can't imagine any of my clients knowing the first thing about it all, and I'm not even sure I could expect an accountant to either, if I pick a non contractor-specialist firm, which would otherwise be my preference.
I quite agree with you about the PCG, they seem a very worthy outfit and it's been my pleasure to join them.Comment
-
Originally posted by ittonyOn the subject of EATs though, I thought that the results of a recent case involving one Mrs Dacas meant that when a contractor has no employment rights there is no mutuality of obligation and that the contract must therefore be unequivocally outside of IR35.
However, if you went to the bother of getting yourself declared not an employee at an EAT (though Muscat did get himself declared an employee there were some very specific and unusual facts) it seems rather unlikely the IR would have a go at IR35 - but there is nothing stopping them and they could win.Comment
-
And there is a PCG member who is very keen on taking the opposite approach - I have been caught for IR35, therefore I demand employment rights - and wants a volunteer to sue on that basis. Ain't going to happen becase they are entirely different beasts.
The taxation thing is Gay Gordon's master plan. Since he has convinced himself that we have companies to avoid paying tax, as opposed to we have companies because we want to work and S134c means we can't do it as Schedule D self employed, and because IR35 has proved ineffectual, and because the CIS scheme has also not worked for construction workers, he seems to have decided the only way to do it is to set the same taxation levels for small company self-employed and real employee. And just to make that really stick, to threaten our route to market, the agencies, with the debt for any tax we fail to pay according to the NL fairness rules.
So basically, at any chance you get, vote for anyone other than Labour.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolioThe taxation thing is Gay Gordon's master plan. Since he has convinced himself that we have companies to avoid paying tax, as opposed to we have companies because we want to work and S134c means we can't do it as Schedule D self employed, and because IR35 has proved ineffectual, and because the CIS scheme has also not worked for construction workers, he seems to have decided the only way to do it is to set the same taxation levels for small company self-employed and real employee. And just to make that really stick, to threaten our route to market, the agencies, with the debt for any tax we fail to pay according to the NL fairness rules.God made men. Sam Colt made them equal.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
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment