Finance Bill 2019-20 draft legislation

[WordIsBond]

did I post this?

No. You might have said something similar sometime but if so I'm sure yours lacks the same charm, pizzazz, sheer weight of intellect, balance, perspective, tact, wisdom, kindness, and humour.

[JohntheBike]

No. You might have said something similar sometime but if so I'm sure yours lacks the same charm, pizzazz, sheer weight of intellect, balance, perspective, tact, wisdom, kindness, and humour.

yes, my mother called me John Blunt

[WordIsBond]

there isn't any basis in law, as I keep saying.

Perhaps not entirely accurately. The legislation says (emphasis added):

the circumstances are such that, if the services were provided under a contract directly between the client and the worker, the worker would be regarded for income tax purposes as an employee of the client.

By saying 'for income tax purposes' it implicitly suggests there are other purposes.

And there is case law precedent of people who were not employees being regarded as employees for tax purposes.

I'm not aware of any explicit basis in law for the distinction but it is implicit. So while I've argued similarly to you on this question and I see it as the weakest point in HMRC's position, I think it is a step too far to say no basis in law.

[northernladuk]

yes, my mother called me John Blunt

You sure you heard that right?

[jds 1981]

there isn't any basis in law, as I keep saying.

Time to get on to our MPs to get it in to law?

[JohntheBike]

Perhaps not entirely accurately. The legislation says (emphasis added):

By saying 'for income tax purposes' it implicitly suggests there are other purposes.

And there is case law precedent of people who were not employees being regarded as employees for tax purposes.

I'm not aware of any explicit basis in law for the distinction but it is implicit. So while I've argued similarly to you on this question and I see it as the weakest point in HMRC's position, I think it is a step too far to say no basis in law.

So can you provide details of this case law? My contention is that the same engagement hasn't been judged in both the FTT and the ET, let alone a different judgement given. This is slightly different from what you are saying. I can understand that someone who considered themselves to be self employed was judged an employee for tax purposes, but I guess no one classed as such then took their case to the ET, let alone received a different judgement, i.e. self employed.

[JohntheBike]

Time to get on to our MPs to get it in to law?

depending on what transpires, and there is a multitude of options, I might test it myself. The client will have to make the first move. I'm not averse to using the ET/EAT route as you might know!

[LeeSJ]

Permie jobs

Permie roles are not always on offer, you know. If the clients wanted permies they could hire permies.

Do you know how hard it is to get additional headcount approved in large organisations who are struggling to keep their opex costs down? There's no way the majority of companies will be able to offer truly perm roles for all contractors... certainly not in the short term

[WordIsBond]

So can you provide details of this case law?

If you'll actually read what I said, it is pretty obvious. Every IR35 case that HMRC has actually won (they do win a few, you know) is a precedent in case law for non-employees being treated as employees for tax.

That is not an explicit endorsement of this disconnect, and I didn't claim it is. But it is an implicit precedent.