HMRC decision tool: doubts about the selected answers, results, implications, ...

[mickael28]

What does the worker have to provide for this engagement that they can't claim as an expense from the end client or an agency?

That was the question they asked, so I was reading it as what expenses specific for this project you incur and cannot claim. I was thinking that insurances are not specific to this project only but to the way contractors operate, so not sure if I'm not reading the question correctly and you've got a point...

[WordIsBond]

In terms of expenses incurred without being able to claim them back from the client, does company insurances count ? An employee doesn't have them and isn't forced to have them, but most contractors are, particularly where its explicitly stated in their contracts.

If the contract requires it, it would have to count. Absolutely, I'd be educating clients that if the contract requires it, then it is an expense required for the engagement. How would it not be?

[MonkeyWorld]

If the contract requires it, it would have to count. Absolutely, I'd be educating clients that if the contract requires it, then it is an expense required for the engagement. How would it not be?

See that'd be my interpretation as well, 'if the contract requires it, it would have to count', however I suspect HMRC have purposefully not included it in the list of examples in the question, as it's such a common one for contractors to have (and for it to be a requirement) that they don't want it to be too readily considered.

[mickael28]

See that'd be my interpretation as well, 'if the contract requires it, it would have to count', however I suspect HMRC have purposefully not included it in the list of examples in the question, as it's such a common one for contractors to have (and for it to be a requirement) that they don't want it to be too readily considered.

That was my view as well. In the bunch of answers I selected picking that answer or not relevant makes the difference between being inside or outside. I've always being required an insurance, so that reading between the lines that meant to me that every single contractor with an insurance would fall outside just for that? which didn't make sense to me so that I thought I was missing something in my understanding...

[WordIsBond]

See that'd be my interpretation as well, 'if the contract requires it, it would have to count', however I suspect HMRC have purposefully not included it in the list of examples in the question, as it's such a common one for contractors to have (and for it to be a requirement) that they don't want it to be too readily considered.

I suspect that, too. I noted it here:

The "other expenses" option on this question should list "insurance," since many contracts require it, but clients may not think of it when using the tool.

That, along with other things such as the complete absence of an MoO questions, makes it clear the tool is "loaded". If you get an "outside" on the tool it will be a breeze to defend it if challenged in court, which is why they've said they won't. It isn't even trying to be fair. In fact, I don't think it is even trying to appear to be fair.

[mickael28]

makes it clear the tool is "loaded". If you get an "outside" on the tool it will be a breeze to defend it if challenged in court, which is why they've said they won't.

Sorry, I didn't fully understand the bolded bits. What does 'loaded' refer to in this context?

And regarding 'they wont', you mean that if the tool provides you with an 'outside' result it would be really easy for us to defend that result so that HMRC has said they won't challenge and will respect the results given by the tool?

[eek]

Sorry, I didn't fully understand the bolded bits. What does 'loaded' refer to in this context?

And regarding 'they wont', you mean that if the tool provides you with an 'outside' result it would be really easy for us to defend that result so that HMRC has said they won't challenge and will respect the results given by the tool?

biased towards the answer HMRC wants...

[WordIsBond]

Sorry, I didn't fully understand the bolded bits. What does 'loaded' refer to in this context?

And regarding 'they wont', you mean that if the tool provides you with an 'outside' result it would be really easy for us to defend that result so that HMRC has said they won't challenge and will respect the results given by the tool?

As eek said, "loaded" means biased towards an inside or undetermined ruling.

They've said they won't challenge an outside ruling from the tool, as long as the answers given were honest. So they've not constructed a fair tool, they've constructed a biased one. If you get an outside result from the tool, they know full well there's no chance they could win a case against you. They might not even go after cases with an undetermined ruling, because they know they'd lose most of those, too, if the contractor wasn't stupid and has good representation.

[RonBW]

Agreed, he was pushing that line too. IMHO Taylor is a New Liebour shill that doesn't comprehend self-employment as a legitimate choice, but one of: 1) a tax dodge operated by highly paid contractors; or 2) something foisted upon the proletariat who really just want employment rights. The idea that someone could choose flexibility over (largely worthless) employment rights is anathema to Taylor. Thus, if the self-employed now have a pension entitlement, they must welcomed back into the comfort blanket of proper employment, where they should've been all along.

If the report is too left wing then it'll be interesting to see how much, if any, of it the May government adopts.

[eek]

As eek said, "loaded" means biased towards an inside or undetermined ruling.

They've said they won't challenge an outside ruling from the tool, as long as the answers given were honest. So they've not constructed a fair tool, they've constructed a biased one. If you get an outside result from the tool, they know full well there's no chance they could win a case against you. They might not even go after cases with an undetermined ruling, because they know they'd lose most of those, too, if the agency / end client wasn't stupid and has good representation.

FTFY as in this new world, they can only attack the contractor if he is found to have provided false information. That's not to say that HMRC won't do so but its going to be far less likely that HMRC will make your life hell by starting an investigation about your personal tax affairs...