What defines a PSC?

[d000hg]

Splitting out from the WFH expenses thread...

Is being a PSC like IR35 - you can be 'in' on one contract and 'out' on another? Or is it all or nothing? In the past d000hg Ltd has certainly been a proper company, charging out as many as 4 people simultaneously people to one client over 2-3 years. At other times I've been a very traditional contractor except that I work on a plan B in the evenings... purchasing things and hiring people through the Ltd so it's really part of the business not a hobby project.

The business entity tests aren't to decide if you're a PSC IIRC, is there a test for this? If you do some 'PSC style' work but also some 'real business' work, where does this put you?

[SueEllen]

There is no proper definition it is a made up term from the time Mr Gordon Brown was around.

The point that those higher up in HMRC and the government don't understand that small businesses change in nature and due to the changes in technology they often work from home.

So for a few years a small business may hire workers or subcontract lots of work out, there as in other years it's only the principle doing any work mainly due to the economic situation created by these morons in government.

[malvolio]

It's a convenient shorthand for a one man band, aka a company with less that 5 workers with those workers holding the majority of the shares, but it has no legal basis or value.

However the pointo fht e business tests - or would be if they worked - is to separate contract from bsuiness; contracts may be inside IR35 but buisinesses aren't. What you can't do is apply a set of tests meant to establish if you are a business to a single contract; so if you pass the In Business test, you won't get an IR35 investigation on any of your contracts. In theory...

So to answer your question, answer the tests based on the last full year's trading.

[tractor]

...

It's a convenient shorthand for a one man band, aka a company with less that 5 workers with those workers holding the majority of the shares, but it has no legal basis or value.

However the pointo fht e business tests - or would be if they worked - is to separate contract from bsuiness; contracts may be inside IR35 but buisinesses aren't. What you can't do is apply a set of tests meant to establish if you are a business to a single contract; so if you pass the In Business test, you won't get an IR35 investigation on any of your contracts. In theory...

So to answer your question, answer the tests based on the last full year's trading.

There is already a definition of this - Close Company. NL Luvvies and HMRC needed to further differentiate so they constructed an artificial definition of a subset of close company that they wished to target. Their definition has no basis in law.

[v8gaz]

There is already a definition of this - Close Company. NL Luvvies and HMRC needed to further differentiate so they constructed an artificial definition of a subset of close company that they wished to target. Their definition has no basis in law.

Absolutely correct about the basis in law part. However it is apparent that in this country, we are no longer ruled by law, but by convenient re-definitions of laws. Not good.

[GB9]

PSC - anyone who should morally pay more tax than they are legally obliged to.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

PSC - anyone who should morally pay more tax than they are legally obliged to.

You been reading the Gutter Press again?

About right though. ** sigh **

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Just the powers that be making up terms which enable them to single out certain sections of the tax paying public to target them more easily

[tractor]

Just the powers that be making up terms which enable them to single out certain sections of the tax paying public to target them more easily

Which was one of the assertions of the original Judicial Review to which the revenue claimed they would not be singling anyone out and it would apply to everyone. I wonder what the metrics are 12 years hence? I bet even with the FOI Act in place, they would just say 'we don't keep those statistics'. Just like they don't keep stats on IR35 take, yeah right!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Which was one of the assertions of the original Judicial Review to which the revenue claimed they would not be singling anyone out and it would apply to everyone. I wonder what the metrics are 12 years hence? I bet even with the FOI Act in place, they would just say 'we don't keep those statistics'. Just like they don't keep stats on IR35 take, yeah right!

Well with HMR&C's time machine I am sure they'd be able to come up with something