HMRC Investigation Protection

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Substitutes don't have to be employees, merely supplied through your own company. In this market I don't think you would be pushed to scare up a dozen or so Unix heroes with insurance knowledge. And "such permission not to be unreasonably withheld" in a RoS rather implies the client has to be able to assess the candidate(s) somehow.

I know what you're saying Mal but, in this case, the Commissioners did not accept this argument and the contractor was left with a £140k bill. The tribunal have reinforced the opinion that it is what happens in reality that is important, not what is included in the contract

[doomage]

I don't think you can include a 12 month rolling, not tied to any project and then go on to say otherwise fairly typical situation. The rolling contract is a pretty big no no and surely a very important detail and makes it a very untypical contractor situation with some other similarities.

Its like saying 'It has 153 seats and 12 litre engine but otherwise a typical commuter car'. Doesn't make sense.

Sorry I meant to imply that apart from the 12 month rolling contract the situation looked 'typical'. Agreed that the other bits just paper over the cracks of a fairly big no no.

The question is, what do you do if faced with that kind of offer? How to mitigate? Request clearer and shorter contracts?

[THEPUMA]

I know what you're saying Mal but, in this case, the Commissioners did not accept this argument and the contractor was left with a £140k bill. The tribunal have reinforced the opinion that it is what happens in reality that is important, not what is included in the contract

He wasn't left with a £140K bill. He was left with a £2K bill (see para 2).

However, this is a very worrying case, particularly concerning the tribunal's attitude towards substitution clauses.

[tarbera]

140K

I take it HMRC can take his house now as we are now in the NO Time to pay HMRC culture. where they don't even give you month before throwing a summary warrent at you.

Anyhoo I take it he represented himself or via his accountant.?

he should have joined the PCG

[northernladuk]

I take it HMRC can take his house now as we are now in the NO Time to pay HMRC culture. where they don't even give you month before throwing a summary warrent at you.

Anyhoo I take it he represented himself or via his accountant.?

he should have joined the PCG

Read the post above you.

He wasn't left with a £140K bill. He was left with a £2K bill (see para 2).

[tarbera]

I did

Read the post above you.

para 2

Appellant had paid for the costs of the appeal, its retained funds would be only about £2000.


no where does it say HMRC were not coming after him personally for the remainging 138K as he is a tax dodger why would HMRC let him off??

OK I have the perfect IR35 defence - keep 2p in your company account and you are IR35 Home and dry

[THEPUMA]

para 2

Appellant had paid for the costs of the appeal, its retained funds would be only about £2000.


no where does it say HMRC were not coming after him personally for the remainging 138K as he is a tax dodger why would HMRC let him off??

Because it isn't his personal liability. It is the company's liability.

[tarbera]

don't think so

Because it isn't his personal liability. It is the company's liability.

he has withdrawn funds illegally from Company hence will be personally liable.

[THEPUMA]

It says:



So does that mean they chase him personally for the outstanding £139,000 or he gets let off because his company doesn't have the funds?

The latter in 99% of cases.

[THEPUMA]

he has withdrawn funds illegally from Company hence will be personally liable.

What makes you think he withdrew the funds illegally? There is nothing I have seen in the judgement to suggest that. He may well have withdrawn the dividends perfectly legally before he was aware that his company was likely to owe this money.