'Self-employment tests' may extend to IT staff'

[Sysman]

Donations to party funds.

For journalists, the power to crush a politician. Or go on a high profile strike.

[Fred Bloggs]

So

a) if you work for a big consultancy and you are on a client site every day (as long as not for more than 2 years at the same site) then the employee gets travel to client site expenses paid tax free.

b) if you work for a brolly and you are on a client site every day (as long as not for more than 2 years at the same site) then HMRC does not want employee to get travel to client site expenses paid tax free.

Great.

AND................ The brolly user gets to pay employers AND employees NI for his troubles. It stinks, it really does.

[malvolio]

AND................ The brolly user gets to pay employers AND employees NI for his troubles. It stinks, it really does.

So why use one? It returns the least net from a given gross, even compared to permiedom, and you're not in control of anything. Seems just a little daft to my simple mind.

[centurian]

a) if you work for a big consultancy and you are on a client site every day (as long as not for more than 2 years at the same site) then the employee gets travel to client site expenses paid tax free.

b) if you work for a brolly and you are on a client site every day (as long as not for more than 2 years at the same site) then HMRC does not want employee to get travel to client site expenses paid tax free.

There is a subtle difference between the two - one that HMRC will latch onto

In the case of a), the extra payments come out of the consultancy's pocket. If the employee were to move closer to client site of their own accord, their travelling expenses would drop according. The employee would receive the same gross income.

For b), the travelling expenses are effectively taken from the contractors gross. If their expenses drop, their (gross) income increases. For a self employed person, this would be fine, but as employees of the umbrella, HMRC will argue that it is effectively commuting costs.

[MPwannadecentincome]

There is a subtle difference between the two - one that HMRC will latch onto

In the case of a), the extra payments come out of the consultancy's pocket. If the employee were to move closer to client site of their own accord, their travelling expenses would drop according. The employee would receive the same gross income.

For b), the travelling expenses are effectively taken from the contractors gross. If their expenses drop, their (gross) income increases. For a self employed person, this would be fine, but as employees of the umbrella, HMRC will argue that it is effectively commuting costs.

I guess the more subtle difference is

a) is a business

b) is not