• 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 "Travel and Subsistence - Ltd Co vs "Large Consultancies""

Collapse

  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    Ah, thanks.

    So getting back to the original question, who has decided that this paragraph means consultancies are exempt? Is there any analysis online, other than a link to the proposal itself?
    The consultation document refers to 'employment intermediaries' as being the target of the legislation and states that:

    "For the purposes of these proposals employment intermediaries will be defined, in part, as a business primarily in the supply of labour services. As such the definition will not include professional service firms that second staff to clients as their business is not primarily in the supply of labour" Beyond this I don't believe there is a definition of a professional service firm although KPMG style themselves as such.

    At the end of the consultation document there is a glossary which defines an Employment Business:

    "An Employment Business (also known as an Employment Agency) provides staff who do not become employed by the hirer, but who are seconded or supplied to a client employer"

    This means that there will now be arguments over the true meaning of seconded as it is used twice in the same document in conjunction with two different business models. As it will be in an employment business' interest to act as a professional service company (according to the definitions above) I would imagine there are a number of lawyers currently rubbing their hands with glee

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    And that's just summed up the problem with HMRC's thinking on this - this loophole will be picked apart before you can say tax
    Ah, thanks.

    So getting back to the original question, who has decided that this paragraph means consultancies are exempt? Is there any analysis online, other than a link to the proposal itself?

    Leave a comment:


  • fidot
    replied
    Originally posted by Danglekt View Post
    define "our staff"

    You get into Employer NI, minimum wage, contract of employment etc. with that arguement, and I doubt most of can be considered employees or staff in that context.
    Staff doesn't necessarily equal employee.

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The "large consultancies" I'm thinking of are the likes of Accenture, IBM, etc. Their staff are sitting next to me, doing a roughly similar role.

    In the last role I had, the Accenture bod was my mirror image in roles (he represented the solution integrator, I represented the business). He travelled down to London from the North and stayed over every week, I doubt he paid for those travel expenses personally.

    The definition of "supply of labour" needs to be expanded on as well. Do we supply labour, or intellectual services?
    And that's just summed up the problem with HMRC's thinking on this - this loophole will be picked apart before you can say tax

    Leave a comment:


  • MrMarkyMark
    replied
    In the last role I had, the Accenture bod was my mirror image in roles (he represented the solution integrator, I represented the business).
    Hopefully, not a mirror image in capabilities .
    I tend to think Accenture are best kept away from the technology side of things, or anything really.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Travel and Subsistence - Ltd Co vs "Large Consultancies"

    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    They're trying to differentiate between companies that second their staff out to work on clients' projects, such as the big accountancy firms who conduct audits, but whose main business is accountancy and recruitment agencies whose sole income is from the supply of staff.
    The "large consultancies" I'm thinking of are the likes of Accenture, IBM, etc. Their staff are sitting next to me, doing a roughly similar role.

    In the last role I had, the Accenture bod was my mirror image in roles (he represented the solution integrator, I represented the business). He travelled down to London from the North and stayed over every week, I doubt he paid for those travel expenses personally.

    The definition of "supply of labour" needs to be expanded on as well. Do we supply labour, or intellectual services?

    Leave a comment:


  • Danglekt
    replied
    define "our staff"

    You get into Employer NI, minimum wage, contract of employment etc. with that arguement, and I doubt most of can be considered employees or staff in that context.

    Does seem hugely unfair though

    Leave a comment:


  • fidot
    replied
    Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View Post
    They're trying to differentiate between companies that second their staff out to work on clients' projects, such as the big accountancy firms who conduct audits, but whose main business is accountancy and recruitment agencies whose sole income is from the supply of staff.
    While that may be true of recruitment agencies, it certainly isn't true of our limited companies. We second our staff to work on clients' projects in exactly the same way as the large consultancies.

    Leave a comment:


  • LisaContractorUmbrella
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    I still don't get how this means big consultancies though. Is the difference in how the staff are paid? (For example, staff of a big consultancy are usually exclusively employees, whereas other contractors are usually the business owners as well? It doesn't mention salary structure though, only the "supply of labour")
    They're trying to differentiate between companies that second their staff out to work on clients' projects, such as the big accountancy firms who conduct audits, but whose main business is accountancy and recruitment agencies whose sole income is from the supply of staff.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    I still don't get how this means big consultancies though. Is the difference in how the staff are paid? (For example, staff of a big consultancy are usually exclusively employees, whereas other contractors are usually the business owners as well? It doesn't mention salary structure though, only the "supply of labour")

    However, professional service firms that second staff to clients will not be caught by the new rules, as their business is not substantially in the supply of labour.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    And more information here: CUK Forum - The Future of Contracting

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Yes, here. "Clear" is arguable However, it's in the paragraph at the top of p.13.

    An employment intermediary’s business must be substantially in the supply of labour
    services. Employment businesses, umbrella companies and PSCs will be within the
    definition. However, professional service firms that second staff to clients will not be
    caught by the new rules, as their business is not substantially in the supply of labour.

    Leave a comment:


  • FarmerPalmer
    replied
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n_Document.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Travel and Subsistence - Ltd Co vs "Large Consultancies"

    Is there a doc somewhere that clearly states the proposed changes to tax relief on travel and subsistence payments being removed for limited companies but not for "large consultancies" such as KPMG etc? What about offshore consultancies who place contractors in the UK? Thanks.

Working...
X