BBC presenters lose IR35 appeal

[JohntheBike]

Quite.

I daresay comments above and below will be concentrating again on the legalese, but be the decision in or out of court, there IS precedent - even if it is not written up in a book.

the point is that actions like this should and dare I say must now ramp up. Even if the disputes are settled out of court, an increase in the numbers using this route should be a salutary lesson to the clients. HMRC will not be bothered as they will claim that everyone is complying. They are not interested in the economical damage that IR35 will create.

[webberg]

the point is that actions like this should and dare I say must now ramp up. Even if the disputes are settled out of court, an increase in the numbers using this route should be a salutary lesson to the clients. HMRC will not be bothered as they will claim that everyone is complying. They are not interested in the economical damage that IR35 will create.

Laying aside problems with time limits; Government policy; the law; damage to contractor/end client relationships, chasing this rainbow will not find a pot of gold.

If I were advising a large end client in the tax issues around this (and for a period that is what I did) then I'd be saying.

1. Always act within the law.
2. Always act in in the interests of shareholders.
3. If there is a verifiable pattern of sub judice claims and settlements, change the manner of engagement for all similar workers
4. Always comply with HMRC requests to their full legal extent (and perhaps a bit beyond)

This caps the possible risks from past actions - a risk that reduces as time limits expire - and prevents new claims arising.

Given the risk appetite of the banking industry in the last 10 years and probably the next 10, I'd be advising them to be placing all but the 95%+ "outside IR35" workers, as inside IR35 and instructing my budget holders accordingly.

[ShandyDrinker]

Laying aside problems with time limits; Government policy; the law; damage to contractor/end client relationships, chasing this rainbow will not find a pot of gold.

If I were advising a large end client in the tax issues around this (and for a period that is what I did) then I'd be saying.

1. Always act within the law.
2. Always act in in the interests of shareholders.
3. If there is a verifiable pattern of sub judice claims and settlements, change the manner of engagement for all similar workers
4. Always comply with HMRC requests to their full legal extent (and perhaps a bit beyond)

This caps the possible risks from past actions - a risk that reduces as time limits expire - and prevents new claims arising.

Given the risk appetite of the banking industry in the last 10 years and probably the next 10, I'd be advising them to be placing all but the 95%+ "outside IR35" workers, as inside IR35 and instructing my budget holders accordingly.

^^Spot on.

[JohntheBike]

Laying aside problems with time limits; Government policy; the law; damage to contractor/end client relationships, chasing this rainbow will not find a pot of gold.

If I were advising a large end client in the tax issues around this (and for a period that is what I did) then I'd be saying.

1. Always act within the law.
2. Always act in in the interests of shareholders.
3. If there is a verifiable pattern of sub judice claims and settlements, change the manner of engagement for all similar workers
4. Always comply with HMRC requests to their full legal extent (and perhaps a bit beyond)

This caps the possible risks from past actions - a risk that reduces as time limits expire - and prevents new claims arising.

Given the risk appetite of the banking industry in the last 10 years and probably the next 10, I'd be advising them to be placing all but the 95%+ "outside IR35" workers, as inside IR35 and instructing my budget holders accordingly.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But ramping up such actions that we are discussing, might just ensure that client do abide by the law, i.e. they make accurate and individual determinations, as is required by the legislation.

[PTP]

People on this forum often say that it’s much more difficult/almost impossible for HMRC to get the £ if it’s not in the company account because IR35 is the company’s liability. And that it can only be taken from the individual if they have been careless/knowingly evaded tax.

Judges said that they weren’t careless.

Surely these BBC presenters (and most contractors) won’t have kept massive warchests in their company. So why is it now so easy for HMRC to get the £300k+ from them?

[ShandyDrinker]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But ramping up such actions that we are discussing, might just ensure that client do abide by the law, i.e. they make accurate and individual determinations, as is required by the legislation.

The highlighted part makes me laugh. That's just the token cover your backside part of the legislation, just like having an appeals process which I fully expect no contractor will ever win.

Sadly this is nothing to do with abiding by the law and we all know it. This is purely political and to do with maximising tax revenue for a specific group of people that successive governments have painted as a particular tax avoiding bogeyman.

[JohntheBike]

The highlighted part makes me laugh. That's just the token cover your backside part of the legislation, just like having an appeals process which I fully expect no contractor will ever win.

Sadly this is nothing to do with abiding by the law and we all know it. This is purely political and to do with maximising tax revenue for a specific group of people that successive governments have painted as a particular tax avoiding bogeyman.

agreed, so we must employ any approach to counter this. However, there are many on here who frown on such action and opinion. Perhaps they are HMRC moles?

[webberg]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But ramping up such actions that we are discussing, might just ensure that client do abide by the law, i.e. they make accurate and individual determinations, as is required by the legislation.

I'm not sure what ghosts in the machine or conspiracy theories are being suggested here, but in my experience working in and advising big corporates, they ALWAYS obey the law where the issues could be business threatening.

They will no doubt have one eye on the drift of decisions but unless there is a case with judicial weight, it will be ignored.

"Ramping up" such actions will simply identify a group of contractors who are frankly too difficult to hire.

[JohntheBike]

I'm not sure what ghosts in the machine or conspiracy theories are being suggested here, but in my experience working in and advising big corporates, they ALWAYS obey the law where the issues could be business threatening.

They will no doubt have one eye on the drift of decisions but unless there is a case with judicial weight, it will be ignored.

"Ramping up" such actions will simply identify a group of contractors who are frankly too difficult to hire.

they ALWAYS obey the law

obeying the law in these circumstances means that they ensure that due diligence is undertaken and that the contracts of individuals are assessed correctly. The evidence so far is that this is not happening. Blanket assessments are the norm.

Faced with this situation, those affected should use whatever legal means they can, to clarify their position.

[simes]

Precedent is a legal term with precise meaning. If you want to argue this you'd better use a different word.

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.