Budget 2012

[Chugnut]

So you think a case where a director of a large Ltd uses a PSC to avoid NI?

And what happens when that director is found to be legally claiming Child Benefit because he's under the 50k phase out amount, since (I believe) this is based on their PAYE income rather than including any dividends?

"That's not really in the spirit of the tax system" will be the argument.

Clobbered retrospectively - since that's the order of the day - maybe?

[kingcook]

I cannot see how though, by definition, a contractor can be integral to an organisation?

I am integral to my organisation. I am the only one. Can't get more integral than that.

[Nixon Williams]

So you think a case where a director of a large Ltd uses a PSC to avoid NI?

Simon, not clear what you are asking but if you are asking if I can think of an example of a CEO/director of a large company/PLC using a PSC, then no, but as I said I believe that this is directed at executives in the public sector, such as Ed Lester, CEO of the Student Loan Company.

If you google this, you will see that he is now on the payroll, but he was until a few weeks ago, using his own limited company, perfectly legally but an embarrassment to the government.

Alan

[northernladuk]

I am integral to my organisation. I am the only one. Can't get more integral than that.

He means a different organisation, as per the example he gave.

Alan,

I think Simon is says is so you think this applys to directors of an organisation (clients) that is a director of his own LTD, similar to the one quoted.

That would mean it wouldn't apply to lowly bods with a normal service offering. Just to avoid high profile people doing high rate roles so reducing embarrasment factor rather than changing the whole tax system for PSC's in general.

Far too early to get to upset IMO though.

[simondolan]

He means a different organisation, as per the example he gave.

Alan,

I think Simon is says is so you think this applys to directors of an organisation (clients) that is a director of his own LTD, similar to the one quoted.

That would mean it wouldn't apply to lowly bods with a normal service offering. Just to avoid high profile people doing high rate roles so reducing embarrasment factor rather than changing the whole tax system for PSC's in general.

Far too early to get to upset IMO though.

Yep, exactly that - its these words "office holders/controlling persons" which would indicate it would only apply to the likes of a CEO for example using a PSC to avoid PAYE

[Bunk]

Yep, exactly that - its these words "office holders/controlling persons" which would indicate it would only apply to the likes of a CEO for example using a PSC to avoid PAYE

That's how I read it too. The wording was a bit unclear about which company they were office holders of. It sounds like a ban on senior management using Ltd's. Wonder how it's going to apply to footballers, and I guess this wouldn't affect Ken Livingstone which is one of the high profile (but perfectly reasonable in my opinion) cases recently.

[simondolan]

That's how I read it too. The wording was a bit unclear about which company they were office holders of. It sounds like a ban on senior management using Ltd's. Wonder how it's going to apply to footballers, and I guess this wouldn't affect Ken Livingstone which is one of the high profile (but perfectly reasonable in my opinion) cases recently.

Agreed. Can't stand Ken Livingstone, but you certainly couldn't criticise his use of his Company.

[northernladuk]

Yep, exactly that - its these words "office holders/controlling persons" which would indicate it would only apply to the likes of a CEO for example using a PSC to avoid PAYE

Defining who is integral to an organisation could be greyer than IR35 ever was I mean, they could define this as being anyone with budget responsibility which.. hang on... crap.. forget I even suggested that

[simondolan]

Defining who is integral to an organisation could be greyer than IR35 ever was I mean, they could define this as being anyone with budget responsibility which.. hang... crap.. forget I even suggested that

I guess they'd go off the ordinary dictionary definition. That being the case you couldn't argue that a contractor in an organisation of even 100 people, let alone 100,000 is "integral" unless they are a director or controlling party.

[Bunk]

I guess they'd go off the ordinary dictionary definition. That being the case you couldn't argue that a contractor in an organisation of even 100 people, let alone 100,000 is "integral" unless they are a director or controlling party.

Which is fine for a lowly minion like me but gets a lot trickier when you get to more senior people like programme managers or interim managers who can be very important to the organisation.