IR35 - HMRC's View

[The Wikir Man]

You don't know the history! However, while it remains a promise that may never be delivered, it is still a major step to get agreement at this level that something needs to be done. All we have to do is pray for a tory win...

Didn't Let Win make a stronger commitment when he was shadow chancellor?

[The Wikir Man]

Except for those of us who think that you lot ought to pay the correct and fair amount of tax.

To be honest, if the government made it clear and consistent, I would have no qualms about paying the tax.

It's the fact that it is so vague and is a complete lottery about whether you are inside / outside, caught / not caught that frustrates me - clarify the legislation and make it enforceable, or scrap it completely. I'm not that fussed one way or the other, to be honest.

[malvolio]

Except for those of us who think that you lot ought to pay the correct and fair amount of tax.

Actually I do, as do most contractors. And in total, between VAT, CT, employer and employees NICs and PAYE, I pay rather more tax to the Exchequer than the average employee does.

So what's your point?

[meridian]

Except for those of us who think that you lot ought to pay the correct and fair amount of tax.

You're obviously being a troll, but:

Tax legislation does not mention the word "fair" at all. It's a makey-up sort of word to appease the masses.

The correct amount of tax is the amount of tax as prescribed by the legislation (including various statutes and case law). If a taxpayer takes Hector to court and wins, then despite whether you think the tax payable is "fair" or not (whatever arbitrary meaning you might ascribe to that word), the tax payable (or refundable) is correct, as proven in a court of law.

[Sally BFCA]

What if the Conservatives were elected and do scrap IR35; they will need to get taxes from somewhere to make up the huge deficit, what would be the easiest way? NIC's on dividends?

[Tarquin Farquhar]

You're obviously being a troll, but:

Tax legislation does not mention the word "fair" at all. It's a makey-up sort of word to appease the masses.

The correct amount of tax is the amount of tax as prescribed by the legislation (including various statutes and case law). If a taxpayer takes Hector to court and wins, then despite whether you think the tax payable is "fair" or not (whatever arbitrary meaning you might ascribe to that word), the tax payable (or refundable) is correct, as proven in a court of law.

I don't agree. I do agree that the legislation is poor: in effect, NICs pay for the Welfare State, so IMHO everybody should pay them on all income. That would be fair, and the law should make it so.

This is what happens e.g. in France, and they have no need for anything like IR35 (or even a presumption against self-employed status) because there is no way of escaping the social contributions on your income by reclassifying it.

And accusing someone of trolling is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[The Wikir Man]

This is what happens e.g. in France, and they have no need for anything like IR35 (or even a presumption against self-employed status) because there is no way of escaping the social contributions on your income by reclassifying it.

I agree.

I've started a new thread to guage the opinion of the CUK intelligentia about whether the equivalent of forcing you inside IR35 (essentially what NICs on dividends becomes) is a good or bad thing.

[meridian]

Except for those of us who think that you lot ought to pay the correct and fair amount of tax.

I don't agree. I do agree that the legislation is poor: in effect, NICs pay for the Welfare State, so IMHO everybody should pay them on all income. That would be fair, and the law should make it so.

This is what happens e.g. in France, and they have no need for anything like IR35 (or even a presumption against self-employed status) because there is no way of escaping the social contributions on your income by reclassifying it.

And accusing someone of trolling is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

But we do pay NICs. Both Employers and Employees. So what was your point again?

[The Wikir Man]

But we do pay NICs. Both Employers and Employees. So what was your point again?

The point is that you don't pay NICs on all your income regardless of source. You pay it on your PAYE and then avoid it on your dividends.

The French system is that tax due is calculated on all income regardless of source.

[meridian]

The point is that you don't pay NICs on all your income regardless of source. You pay it on your PAYE and then avoid it on your dividends.

The French system is that tax due is calculated on all income regardless of source.

Ah, sorry. I thought you were after a "fair" tax system.

How does NICs on all dividends treat the elderly "fairly", considering their pension pots have already been robbed by Brown? Or is it only your own version of fair that is the accepted one?

Come to think of it, was Brown only doing what was "fair" when he applied the pension stealth tax?

(As you can see I detest the word "fair" when it is used to describe legislation. One man's "fair" is another man's "unfair"... )