Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella
View Post
- 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!
Collapse
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "Nixon Williams Response to Summer Budget 2015"
Collapse
-
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Gumbo Robot View PostI thought this was subject to consultation?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Craig at Nixon Williams View PostNW 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:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostThe 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:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostThe 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:
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostSJD bought out NW a while ago.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by unixman View PostSJD gave exactly the same response, including verbatim words.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
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:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Today 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Yesterday 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
Leave a comment: