IR35 Proof ?

[ImNotFromIndia]

Speaking with a contractor here who states he is IR35 proof no matter wether the contract sits inside IR35 or not, by virtue of the way his company was set up

His company is thus

50% A shares owned by him

50% B shares owned by accountant

He reckons it's becuase he doesn't truly own his company thus cant be a disguised employee

Is this True or Not ?

Take the money and run ... move to a country where they can't find you.

[tim123]

No. Urban Myth # 23. Hector looks at the relationship between you personally and the end client; nothing else counts and will in the main be ignored.

I fail to see any reason why you quoted my reply before this.

I said the company structure had nothing to do with IR35, didn't I!

tim

[malvolio]

It is.

But it isn't this that makes people who work through composites outside IR35.

tim

No. Urban Myth # 23. Hector looks at the relationship between you personally and the end client; nothing else counts and will in the main be ignored.

Some comps, notably Brooksons, only take you on if in their opinion (which is pretty well informed) you are outside IR35 for that contract. That doesn't mean you are, nor that you won't t investigated - in fact right now, using a comp is a dangerous option anyway, but if you've been in for a while it's too late to get out anwyway.

I agree with the others. Your friend is a complacent fool who may well get hit with a big tax bill sometime. HMRC are investigating and will be taking action against any cases of incorporation and other artificial structures purely to avoid paying tax.

[tim123]

Isn't there a way of having classes of shares so that you don't have to pay equal dividends? I thought this was how the composites operated.

It is.

But it isn't this that makes people who work through composites outside IR35.

tim

[VectraMan]

Isn't there a way of having classes of shares so that you don't have to pay equal dividends? I thought this was how the composites operated.

[SallyAnne]

He is a twat and his accountant is onto a good little earner (and probably not too honest either).

It doesn't matter how his company is set up as IR35 is worked out on a per contract basis. When the IR comes sniffing he'd best get the vasaline out.

Secondly if he wants to pay himself dividends he will also have to pay his acountant a dividend of equal value which will destroy his plans of getting money out of his company in a tax efficient way and leave his account laughing all the way to the bank, especially as he cannot get those shares back from the accountant unless he buys them back....

All in all the guy is a knob jockey and is going to get screwed out of loads of money in the long run.

Ahhh knob jockey - I havn't heard that in years

[Nixon Williams]

It never fails to amaze me what some people sign up to.

I would question whether his "accountant" is qualified, if he has suggested this I would guess not.

Alan

[Ardesco]

He is a twat and his accountant is onto a good little earner (and probably not too honest either).

It doesn't matter how his company is set up as IR35 is worked out on a per contract basis. When the IR comes sniffing he'd best get the vasaline out.

Secondly if he wants to pay himself dividends he will also have to pay his acountant a dividend of equal value which will destroy his plans of getting money out of his company in a tax efficient way and leave his account laughing all the way to the bank, especially as he cannot get those shares back from the accountant unless he buys them back....

All in all the guy is a knob jockey and is going to get screwed out of loads of money in the long run.

[duke748]

Speaking with a contractor here who states he is IR35 proof no matter wether the contract sits inside IR35 or not, by virtue of the way his company was set up

His company is thus

50% A shares owned by him

50% B shares owned by accountant

He reckons it's becuase he doesn't truly own his company thus cant be a disguised employee

Is this True or Not ?