IR35buddy

[malvolio]

Just curious about one thing since it cropped up on the other thread and apologies if it's a silly question, but how safe are the membership lists of PCG (plus or otherwise) and Qdos's (or Accountax's) client list for IR35 insurance from HMRC's prying eyes? I would actually think these sort of services may be an obstacle to them, given their track record of losing cases when any of these organisations are involved, even if they interpreted as suggesting the contractor may be hiding something from them.

Can't answer for the commercial bodies (although they are covered by the Data Protection Acts to some extent) but PCG has never and will never let anyone at its membership list.

One of the accounting oddities is that PCG subs are not allowable against CT. This is because they are not an official Trade Organisation and if they were the subs would be allowable. However to become a trade organisation you first have to divulge your membership. Nope, not going to happen.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

Can't answer for the commercial bodies (although they are covered by the Data Protection Acts to some extent) but PCG has never and will never let anyone at its membership list.

I suspect the answer is not safe at all, be it PCG or commercial bodies.

HMRC have certain rights under TMA 1970 et seq to request returns of this and that, eg letting agents of landlord payments, pubs and clubs of entertainers, ISTR there are one or two for agencies as well.

However all those requirements do is make HMRCs job a bit easier. Without the power to request a specific return all they have to do is open an enquiry into business accounts and extract the information that way. It would be the devils own job to try and argue withholding, say, customer lists, on the grounds of DP or privacy. I'd imagine PCG have a business taxes obligation / interaction with HMRC even if quasi charitable - there are very few organisations that don't. Conceivably HMRC could even go in for this information via an Employer Compliance Review or VAT inspection.

I've known HMRC open enquires into business accounts just to extract information to go fishing for the next link in the chain - we had a COP 8 / civil fraud case once that came from just that - supplier information from a "clean" business revealed my clients to be running a massive off books tax fraud.

TBH if HMRC wanted to up the ante on IR35 work, I don't know why they just don't access the limited company payment information of the likes of Reed or Hays and then go for the easy cases.

[jamesbrown]

TBH if HMRC wanted to up the ante on IR35 work, I don't now why they just don't access the limited company payment information of the likes of Reed or Hays and then go for the easy cases.

Yep.

[malvolio]

PCG is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee and owned by its members. Business taxes are paid as a whole, there's no real need to understand the make-up, only the gross income and outgoings. Surpluses are retained for fighting funds, expansion of their scope and the like.

But as you say, HMRC can deduce the information fairly easily in these days of iXBRL RTI ...

[Zero Liability]

TBH if HMRC wanted to up the ante on IR35 work, I don't know why they just don't access the limited company payment information of the likes of Reed or Hays and then go for the easy cases.

Don't go giving them ideas!

So the answer seems to be that they could obtain this information by looking into your accounts, anyway, and there are easier routes to go for soft targets than that.

[TestMangler]

TBH if HMRC wanted to up the ante on IR35 work, I don't know why they just don't access the limited company payment information of the likes of Reed or Hays and then go for the easy cases.

I personally know four (Ok, three plus me), people who have been through Ir35 enquiries involving Hays contracts.

Not one of us lost.

Easy cases my arse !!

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

I personally know four (Ok, three plus me), people who have been through Ir35 enquiries involving Hays contracts.

Not one of us lost.

Easy cases my arse !!

Yep, because you're clued up and fight your corner.

I suspect a lot of people with the big agencies may not be though. From HMRCs pov that could be easy pickings, even if they only get a small percentage success rate. Cost of case working with template letters, quite low - shake the tree, see what comes down.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

Don't go giving them ideas!

I did think twice about saying that

[Zero Liability]

Ultimately though, if HMRC were to resort to that sort of tactic and the agencies picked up on it, could they not prep their clients on how to handle them? Whether or not they have the incentive to is a different question.

[TestMangler]

Yep, because you're clued up and fight your corner.

I suspect a lot of people with the big agencies may not be though. From HMRCs pov that could be easy pickings, even if they only get a small percentage success rate. Cost of case working with template letters, quite low - shake the tree, see what comes down.

I didn't fight a thing I had investigation insurance. Any contractor who doesn't deserves all they get !