Contractor expenses under private sector IR35 reform: overview Article

[northernladuk]

Could you punctuate that so it makes sense, please?

No. [emoji14] HTH

[mudskipper]

I'm sure it could be what would be the point of that seems Admin has admitted the wording and calcs were wrong?

Could you punctuate that so it makes sense, please?

[Old Greg]

I'm sure it could be what would be the point of that seems Admin has admitted the wording and calcs were wrong?

Or Dolan got this wrong and Admin is saving an advertiser's blushes.

[WordIsBond]

I'm sure it could be what would be the point of that seems Admin has admitted the wording and calcs were wrong?

Yes, you're right, this is a good, serious response to my comment.

What was your first clue in my comment that I was looking for a serious response?

[northernladuk]

Too bad the article is gone now, I'm sure more could have been said.

I'm sure it could be what would be the point of that seems Admin has admitted the wording and calcs were wrong?

[WordIsBond]

if any of you want a journo job let me know.

Why would we want to actually work to produce something worthwhile when we can instead snark when someone messes up? The latter is much more fun. Offer me the powers to ban cojak and NAT and you might have my attention, however. That might almost be worth working for.

I overlooked something in my earlier comment. This article is about JIM himself. Good old Jim, head of accounting and tax, he's given us his own information in the article. And now it makes sense. Simon's done the BBC thing and made Jim work under his own Ltd, and he also isn't paying him very well for such an important role.

Maybe Simon doesn't think Jim is all that good (and maybe he isn't). But maybe the problem is that Simon doesn't pay Jim enough, and poor old Jim has to spend his weekends and evenings driving for Uber instead of brushing up on RLPs.

Too bad the article is gone now, I'm sure more could have been said.

[administrator]

Sorry, just been made aware of this one. Journo brain fart at this end unfortunately, not a reflection on the content provider. Getting this redone as clearly some serious issues with the wording and calcs on the piece.

Usually we send requests to contacts, get the content back, rewrite and then get sign off. Procedures not followed on this occasion

Will put the article back up when it makes sense and is signed off by the contributor. Thanks for pointing out the flaws, if any of you want a journo job let me know.

[WordIsBond]

Am I missing something or does this article completely ignore the £11.9K that Jim is no longer paying in Corporation Tax?

Yes, you are right. Not a great advertisement for Dolan Accountancy, I'd say.

I can't be bothered to check the tax calculations, but if they are right Jim has take-home under the new scenario of £49,356.59. If he has £10K in expenses, which are now being paid out of after tax funds, he has £39,356.59.

That is considerably worse than £52.5K outside of IR35, but it isn't £25K.

This also assumes that the £1120 Flat Rate VAT savings would be handled as personal taxation, but I don't think it would be, I think it would go into company profits and could be used to pay expenses before tax. That's only a few hundred quid difference, though.

He also doesn't get how Relevant Life Plans work. The company is not the beneficiary of RLPs. One would expect someone to know what they are talking about before putting out a formal article like this on a well-respected site.

And, if the new rules come in in the private sector and you are declared inside, you had just as well go umbrella and save the NICs on your pension contributions. If expenses are £10K, some of that is probably pension contributions, and the impact for those can be mitigated.

Also, medical insurance, etc, may well be more beneficial to pay through the company if your salary is only £8.4K, even if it is a BIK. I'd expect an accountant to be able to run the numbers and see.

Other than those and the other errors that I haven't bothered to check carefully for, it's a fine article. Who cares about mistakes here or there as long as they are less than £20K?

Wouldn't it be nice if someone from Dolan Accountancy posted here occasionally and would take notice of things like this and get their act together?

[Maslins]

Am I missing something or does this article completely ignore the £11.9K that Jim is no longer paying in Corporation Tax?

Yeah I thought that. Either a very bad article, or deliberately misleading to make people think it's worse than it is (I agree it'd still be pretty bad, but only about half as bad as their figures suggest).

[northernladuk]

Rhubarb rhubarb...

[SouthernHarrier]

Am I missing something or does this article completely ignore the £11.9K that Jim is no longer paying in Corporation Tax?

https://www.contractoruk.com/expense...nses_bill.html

So Jim is still worse off but not £25K worse off. Closer to £13k I'd say. Of course there are lot's of other factors, e.g. paying for your accountant out of your own pocket wtc.