Legal Definition of "Office Holder" ?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Twelve out of fourteen of my posts mention IR35; that is a revealing statistic with which I am only acquainted by virtue of your reference, but it does not surprise me because I recognise it as a salient insight into how economic activity in Western democracies is evolving. The growth in Contracting and temporary work has been a feature of the widespread recession.

The fact that IR35 presents a scary threat to some people is regrettable. My own philosophy is a natural ally to all business aspirants, I see in the capitalist system the most successful way yet discovered to nurture new businesses, produce wealth and to provide the taxes to support nations’ welfare states.

Any government having to fund a benefits system amid a world banking crisis and an ageing population is bound to encounter circles that cannot be squared in terms of balancing the books, it is not surprising therefore if loopholes are closed where they appear openly abused. ‘Office Holders’ has been chosen as a target for attack and I have several people who are concerned about its scope. I would be interested (as an accountant) in some clarity and so it seems would Adrian Marlowe of Lawspeed (as a lawyer).

You could always ask HMR&C for clarity and then you could let us all know

[Precept]

You could always ask HMR&C for clarity and then you could let us all know

I had assumed that the answer to that question would have come from some influential source with direct access to senior HMRC personnel, perhaps PCG for example.

In the meantime there has been a post lodged this morning at Contractor Calculator which shows this issue is already at the forefront of a mind with more clout than I can currently muster. Its under the title: IR35 avoidance industry: when is an office holder not an office holder?

[malvolio]

I had assumed that the answer to that question would have come from some influential source with direct access to senior HMRC personnel, perhaps PCG for example.

In the meantime there has been a post lodged this morning at Contractor Calculator which shows this issue is already at the forefront of a mind with more clout than I can currently muster. Its under the title: IR35 avoidance industry: when is an office holder not an office holder?

PCG have been seeking clarity for the last 12 years. Given their level of access, which is considerably higher than CC's - check out who sits on the IR35 Forum - it's quite possible we won't get any.

However, depsite many people's misgivings, HMRC are clear on what they mean by "Office Holder". This is nothing to do with IR35 as applied to us, it is actually correcting an anomalous position between IR35 and ITEPA 2003 regarding liability for NICs: the "Office Holder" is already liable for them under ITEPA but potentially not under IR35. It changes absolutely nothing in the way IR35 is being administered in general. If HMRC try it on at some point, the inevitable appeal will answer the question.

As I keep saying, Chicken Little has no place in tax accountancy. If the sky is falling - and I for one don't think it is - it's not because of this.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I had assumed that the answer to that question would have come from some influential source with direct access to senior HMRC personnel, perhaps PCG for example.

In the meantime there has been a post lodged this morning at Contractor Calculator which shows this issue is already at the forefront of a mind with more clout than I can currently muster. Its under the title: IR35 avoidance industry: when is an office holder not an office holder?

Why? Names of senior HMR&C folks are quite readily available - nothing to stop you asking the question

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

PCG have been seeking clarity for the last 12 years. Given their level of access, which is considerably higher than CC's - check out who sits on the IR35 Forum - it's quite possible we won't get any.

However, depsite many people's misgivings, HMRC are clear on what they mean by "Office Holder". This is nothing to do with IR35 as applied to us, it is actually correcting an anomalous position between IR35 and ITEPA 2003 regarding liability for NICs: the "Office Holder" is already liable for them under ITEPA but potentially not under IR35. It changes absolutely nothing in the way IR35 is being administered in general. If HMRC try it on at some point, the inevitable appeal will answer the question.

As I keep saying, Chicken Little has no place in tax accountancy. If the sky is falling - and I for one don't think it is - it's not because of this.

Where exactly are HMR&C clear on what they mean by 'office holder' - there have been two contradictory definitions posted on here