Work in Banking? Don't worry about the blanket ban you were probably inside all along

[eek]

As today's IR35 tribunal makes clear ...

[cojak]

So he didn't leave after he completed his first project with the Nationwide.

Oops.

[simes]

Oh dear.

Well, let's hope the chap has enough in his warchest to cover both the £70k, plus whatever Corporation Tax will be due for 19/20. 'Cos with the new laws post April, there ain't gonna be much going into his Company account henceforth.

[BrilloPad]

Will HMRC now chase retrospecively?

If only there was a court case where scheme users wanted to be found inside....

[sira]

Will HMRC now chase retrospecively?

Of course they will. They will start by going after those who have had large revenues over the last several years

[eek]

So he didn't leave after he completed his first project with the Nationwide.

Oops.

I don't think that was the issue here - my attention was drawn to this bit

However, crucially, granted the bank’s “need as a highly regulated business to monitor the progress of the relevant project”, it was determined that Lee was subject to an overarching degree of control.

which basically says that bank's due have to assert control - and that's enough to be inside..

[Pring]

Oh dear.

Well, let's hope the chap has enough in his warchest to cover both the £70k, plus whatever Corporation Tax will be due for 19/20. 'Cos with the new laws post April, there ain't gonna be much going into his Company account henceforth.

How does this work in practice - can he offset the extra Corporation Tax he paid back then against the £70k that's found against him so the actual amount he'll have to settle will be lower?

[Antman]

Work in Banking? Don't worry about the blanket ban you were probably inside all along

I don't think that was the issue here - my attention was drawn to this bit



which basically says that bank's due have to assert control - and that's enough to be inside..

Do hmrc only have to prove one of the three pillars to win the case? I thought it would have to be the other way around, accused only having to prove MoO or RoS to get off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapata

edit: OK read the article, interesting part about MoO that can be used elsewhere though

[simes]

How does this work in practice - can he offset the extra Corporation Tax he paid back then against the £70k that's found against him so the actual amount he'll have to settle will be lower?

Sorry, this I do not know.

Best guess, said chap owes back taxes to the tune of £70k, irrespective of what he owes in ongoing contracts. To wit, I am not sure he is still in Nationwide. If he is elsewhere let's say, it will be This plus That.

If he is still at NW, I have no idea.

[eek]

Do hmrc only have to prove one of the three pillars to win the case? I thought it would have to be the other way around, accused only having to prove MoO or RoS to get off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoS isn't mentioned. MoO is mentioned but it wasn't a deciding factor - there is no MoO between contracts but was within the contracts themselves.

Oh found it - dismissed as

Finally, I have found that there was no substantive prospect of MrLee asking for or Nationwide, acting reasonably, agreeing to a substitute

MoO is always going to be an awkward one as it doesn't actually mean what people think it does...