Key gig economy case reaches Supreme Court (Pimlico Plumbers)

[PerfectStorm]

Key gig economy case reaches Supreme Court - BBC News

So he had to drive their van and work minimum hours? Hmm

[MrButton]

Key gig economy case reaches Supreme Court (Pimlico Plumbers)

So he was VAT registered. So he was running via a ltd? (Edit - this is wrong as could be a sole trader) Interested to see if he declared himself inside or outside IR35.

Might be an easy case for HMRC.

[Manic]

Can still be VAT registered and a sole trader.

[DaveB]

Key gig economy case reaches Supreme Court - BBC News

So he had to drive their van and work minimum hours? Hmm

It's the "employer" who is pushing this one. Trying to avoid liability for workers rights. Lower courts have all found in favour of the plumber himself claiming he was a worker and not an independent business.

[Bheleu]

pimlico plumbers supreme court

I hope I have got the right group for this, if not please transfer


That old chestnut the employment status of a plumber has kicked of again, is anybody following this case and how it might effect contracting as we know it ?

See
https://www.theguardian.com/business...g-economy-uber

[Manic]

I hope I have got the right group for this, if not please transfer


That old chestnut the employment status of a plumber has kicked of again, is anybody following this case and how it might effect contracting as we know it ?

See
https://www.theguardian.com/business...g-economy-uber

https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...-plumbers.html

[Bheleu]

thread answered elsewere

As Manic says see the other thread and thanks to manic for pointing this out

https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...-plumbers.html

[markomagic1]

Pimlico Plumbers Supreme Court Decision - How will this affect IR35?

Hi All

You probably noticed the high profile Supreme Court case started yesterday involving a 'self employed' worker for Pimlico Plumbers requesting employment rights, including sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy etc etc. He's been successful in winning this argument through the Courts so far, it's Pimlico's appeal that now means Supreme Court are involved.

If the self employed worker in this case wins, surely this could have massive ramifications for the HMRC and Government in their pursuit of IR35?

Taking the Public Sector as the example with the rollout of the new IR35 rules and CEST. Whilst there was an incentive for these organisations to try and declare the roles inside IR35 recently, surely a favourable Supreme Court ruling would mean that anyone declared inside IR35 and on PAYE/NIC would now be able to claim employment rights?

That would be a liability nightmare for the Public Sector (and Private), completely undermining any perceived benefits the HMRC would be getting in raising additional tax. Every company would be desperate to avoid roles being inside IR35 if it came with the fear of those employee rights being applied.

Thoughts?

Mark

[pauldee]

I'd be interested to know how much tax the 'employees' of Pimlico have been paying. I wonder if they're suddenly considered employees if they get a big backdated tax bill?

[markomagic1]

I'd be interested to know how much tax the 'employees' of Pimlico have been paying. I wonder if they're suddenly considered employees if they get a big backdated tax bill?

My guess is that they'll be woefully underpaid for their work and the tax won't be a headache nor an incentive for them. A bit like Deliveroo drivers being self employed so Deliveroo don't have to pay them minimum wage.

I can only imagine this is going to create a huge headache for HMRC and the Govt if the Supreme Court finds in favour of the worker. It'll mean if people are operating like employees, even if they are classed as self employed, then they will be entitled to the benefits and security of employees. This could even mean redundancy in the event they operate in the post for more than 2 years.

I can just imagine no department, Govt or Private, would want the liability of self employed workers entitled to employee rights. They'd be better off agreeing a contract structure that makes it clear they are not employees and therefore outside IR35.