• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Nixon Williams Response to Summer Budget 2015"

Collapse

  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    There is going to be a consultation on this with initial meetings at the end of this month but generally a 'consultation' means that something will happen albeit with alterations whereas a 'discussion' usually means they haven't made their mind up whether to do something or not.

    From what I've read (the actual lines and between them) the original theories behind IR35 will apply to this new legislation - HMRC are making the distinction, with extreme and fairly unhelpful examples, between an individual brought in to complete a project because no-one in their existing workforce has the skills to undertake the role and a worker who's recruited to replace or augment existing workers. What's new is that they're relying purely on SDC to make a determination of status (presumably after their failure to make a case in Talentcore Courts aren ) and that they're considering passing tax liability if false claims are made
    The fact talentcore is explicitly mentioned within the discussion document was rather enlightening...

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    There is going to be a consultation on this with initial meetings at the end of this month but generally a 'consultation' means that something will happen albeit with alterations whereas a 'discussion' usually means they haven't made their mind up whether to do something or not.

    From what I've read (the actual lines and between them) the original theories behind IR35 will apply to this new legislation - HMRC are making the distinction, with extreme and fairly unhelpful examples, between an individual brought in to complete a project because no-one in their existing workforce has the skills to undertake the role and a worker who's recruited to replace or augment existing workers. What's new is that they're relying purely on SDC to make a determination of status (presumably after their failure to make a case in Talentcore Courts aren ) and that they're considering passing tax liability if false claims are made

    Leave a comment:


  • BolshieBastard
    replied
    Originally posted by Gumbo Robot View Post
    I thought this was subject to consultation?
    Perhaps engage a better accountancy practice?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by centurian View Post
    Admittedly it was a sneaky, last minute change - but it's the job of the well paid professionals to pick up on the finer details - not rely on their customers to point it out to them.
    It's not see my comment above...

    Leave a comment:


  • PerfectStorm
    replied
    Originally posted by Craig at Nixon Williams View Post
    NW and SJD share common ownership - both businesses were acquired simultaneously last year by a PE company. The brands remain independent and it is not the case that one owns the other, however we have each used the same budget communication.
    Ah - acquisition talk. Hope your CV is up to date...

    Leave a comment:


  • centurian
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The consultation document also says "supervision, direction, OR control", not "and", there's a big difference and it's important that our accountants get it right.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n_Document.pdf
    Admittedly it was a sneaky, last minute change - but it's the job of the well paid professionals to pick up on the finer details - not rely on their customers to point it out to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The consultation document also says "supervision, direction, OR control", not "and", there's a big difference and it's important that our accountants get it right.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n_Document.pdf

    That was one of the things I picked up at the weekend reading this in detail. While we use and it seems that the correct phrase (as used in tax tribunals) has always been OR....

    And its a killer for contractors as its broad enough to make a brand representative telling a sales assistant how to promote a product in the "brands way" their supervisor and for the sales assistant to be subject to supervision...

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig at Nixon Williams
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    SJD bought out NW a while ago.
    NW and SJD share common ownership - both businesses were acquired simultaneously last year by a PE company. The brands remain independent and it is not the case that one owns the other, however we have each used the same budget communication.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by unixman View Post
    SJD gave exactly the same response, including verbatim words.
    Originally posted by JonNorris@Crunch View Post
    Same company now, isn't it?
    Yep.

    SJD bought out NW a while ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonNorris@Crunch
    replied
    Originally posted by unixman View Post
    SJD gave exactly the same response, including verbatim words.
    Same company now, isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • unixman
    replied
    SJD gave exactly the same response, including verbatim words.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    The consultation document also says "supervision, direction, OR control", not "and", there's a big difference and it's important that our accountants get it right.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n_Document.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig at Nixon Williams
    replied
    The wording on our update is indeed incorrect in respect to T&S relief – this is simply a proposal and is subject to consultation.

    Apologies for any confusion that this has caused.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Waldorf View Post
    Yes, it is subject to consultation. The consultation document is available from the H M Treasury's website.
    And its clear that they either didn't read it or comprehend the impact of the cases quoted...

    Leave a comment:


  • Waldorf
    replied
    Originally posted by Gumbo Robot View Post
    I thought this was subject to consultation?
    Yes, it is subject to consultation. The consultation document is available from the H M Treasury's website.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X