Government review is on website

[mallisarealperson]

Review of changes to the off-payroll working rules: report and conclusions - GOV.UK

[Pring]

To save others like me who have been looking for clarify on overseas supply chains with no UK presence - the legislation has been updated so that things continue as they currently are.

During the review concerns were raised about how the rules will apply where the client is overseas. The Government has listened to those concerns and will amend the legislation to exclude wholly overseas organisations with no UK presence from having to consider the off-payroll working rules. This means the existing rules for engagements outside the public sector will continue to apply to engagements where the client is wholly overseas, and the individual's limited company will continue to determine the status of the individual.

Bit of a shame as I was hoping to shunt the risk onto the overseas client (who HMRC would likely never be able to pursue) but at least I know where I stand now and am in control of my determination..

[simes]

It's a bit of a fop as in this globalised world, what large or medium sized entity does Not have a UK, or at least multi-country, presence?

My hope in recent past was, as I am being paid from abroad, but work from home, London and NL, that I 'should' have been outside of any Inside or Outside debate. Not the case.

[eek]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...e_strategy.pdf is HMRC's published approach

HMRC has already committed to not using information resulting from the changes to therules to open a new compliance check into Personal Service Companies for tax years priorto 6 April 2020, unless there is reason to suspect fraud or criminal behaviour.

is the important bit - the question is what do they mean by fraud. Criminal behaviour is clear (no-one here would be caught by that requirement) fraud is a far more open question...

[simes]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...e_strategy.pdf is HMRC's published approach

is the important bit - the question is what do they mean by fraud. Criminal behaviour is clear (no-one here would be caught by that requirement) fraud is a far more open question...

Which is why when this bit has been quoted in other posts citing that HMRC have stated a promise and so everyone can take a deep sigh of relief, others say that it will be BAU for the HMRC to do whatever they like.

Case in point:

Chaps, do we suspect fraud at GSK?
Why, yes!
Have we told everyone Else not to blanket assess?
Yeah, but since there's rampant fraud...
Right-o, fire off an enlightening letter to their contractors.

[eek]

Which is why when this bit has been quoted in other posts citing that HMRC have stated a promise and so everyone can take a deep sigh of relief, others say that it will be BAU for the HMRC to do whatever they like.

Case in point:

Chaps, do we suspect fraud at GSK?
Why, yes!
Have we told everyone Else not to blanket assess?
Yeah, but since there's rampant fraud...
Right-o, fire off an enlightening letter to their contractors.

If HMRC had not separated fraud out I would be looking at the document and telling anyone who wished to rollover into an inside contract that they were safe to do so. The additional use of the word fraud fills me with dread - HMRC are very good at both ignoring what they have said when it's inconvenient for them and adding seemingly unnecessary words that they then use whenever they want.

[simes]

If HMRC had not separated fraud out I would be looking at the document and telling anyone who wished to rollover into an inside contract that they were safe to do so. The additional use of the word fraud fills me with dread - HMRC are very good at both ignoring what they have said when it's inconvenient for them and adding seemingly unnecessary words that they then use whenever they want.

Agreed.

But I think at this juncture, a route to maintaining ones world of little or no disappointment, would be to just disbelieve anything they have to say.

Preparing for the worst, is my mantra.

[ComplianceLady]

"Where errors are identified HMRC will help customers to correct them, to pay the tax and National Insurance Contributions that are due and to ensure status determinations are correct going forwards."

This concerns me - it effectively means the 'no penalties' approach is meaningless. No one is concerned about the penalty on its own, it is the whole liability - this won't change clients approach in the slightest.

[eek]

"Where errors are identified HMRC will help customers to correct them, to pay the tax and National Insurance Contributions that are due and to ensure status determinations are correct going forwards."

This concerns me - it effectively means the 'no penalties' approach is meaningless. No one is concerned about the penalty on its own, it is the whole liability - this won't change clients approach in the slightest.

But it sounds nice.

It's also irrelevant as I think you would easily be have until the end of the tax year to resolve any mistakes you make during it.

[jamesbrown]

BAU for fully overseas supply chains. Shame about that, but it makes sense.