Reply to: Cost of a losing an IR35 case?

[northernladuk]

Then off you go. And take your zero value variables with you.

Ok.. Take this foul knave...

When 2 does not equal 2 – GPEI

Taaaaaxi….

[Tertius]

A client is not permitted to pass on Employers NI costs on a negotiated rate if a Ltd role simply starts being paid on a PAYE basis - hence the mandatory cuts being applied to new 'assignment' rates on new contracts.

Therefore, on an existing contract where the rate was negotiated and agreed in the past as a Ltd rate, and then it is judged to have been disguised employment retrospectively. Surely the Employers NI liability would be with the ex-client/now-employer? just as paid holiday would be.

They can't say an individual is both a employee of the client in HMRCs eyes and an employees of the Ltd co in laws eyes. Well they can say this but this seems hugely unjust.

I know the process for testing for tax liability and employment are different, but the valid tests for both are closely aligned. There is interesting discussion on this here https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/dp1.pdf

[Old Greg]

Yeah yeah.. Exit is that way - ->

Then off you go. And take your zero value variables with you.

[eek]

This could get interesting:

How far back can a worker claim holiday pay where they have not taken any annual leave because it would not have been paid? | Brodies Blog

The Court of Justice of the European Union - so that's probably only valid until 1st Jan 2021...

[LondonManc]

Nope - employed for tax purposes does not mean employed for employee benefit purposes (you can be the former and not the latter) so that back holiday may not be available.

No Rights Employee is a whole site highlighting what it means...

This could get interesting:

How far back can a worker claim holiday pay where they have not taken any annual leave because it would not have been paid? | Brodies Blog

[northernladuk]

There's an error there for a start.

Yeah yeah.. Exit is that way - ->

[Old Greg]

*cough*

Let x=y

Multiply both sides by x:

x2=xy
(squared)

Subtract y2 (squared)
from both sides:

x2−y2=xy−y2

Factor:

(x+y)(x−y)=y(x−y)

Cancel out (x−y)

from both sides:

(x+y)=y

Simplify (Because x=y
):


y+y=y

2y=y


2=1

Boooom! Do one!!!

There's an error there for a start.

[WordIsBond]

I now anticipate this thread going completely pear-shaped.

*cough*

Let x=y

Multiply both sides by x:

x2=xy
(squared)

Subtract y2 (squared)
from both sides:

x2−y2=xy−y2

Factor:

(x+y)(x−y)=y(x−y)

Cancel out (x−y)

from both sides:

(x+y)=y

Simplify (Because x=y
):


y+y=y

2y=y


2=1

Boooom! Do one!!!

I'm always right.

[CompoundOverload]

It's also a timing thing - HMRC love to use the 4 year window they have to do such things and that 4 year window for cases has a while left to go.

If HMRC was following past behaviour I would expect letters to be sent at Easter for those caught by the public sector changes..

Is that 4 years AFTER your first SATR was submitted? i.e. if your first SATR was submitted for TY 2016/17 (submitted by Jan 31st 2017) - they still have a year to open a question / look into it?

[jamesbrown]

I now anticipate this thread going completely pear-shaped.

TBF, it started off looking like an eggplant.

[jamesbrown]

*cough*

Factor:

Yeah, about that...

[northernladuk]

My post was 100% indisputably factually correct.

*cough*

Let x=y

Multiply both sides by x:

x2=xy
(squared)

Subtract y2 (squared)
from both sides:

x2−y2=xy−y2

Factor:

(x+y)(x−y)=y(x−y)

Cancel out (x−y)

from both sides:

(x+y)=y

Simplify (Because x=y
):


y+y=y

2y=y


2=1

Boooom! Do one!!!

[Old Greg]

Nice try, but that's only one fact, and NLUK dumped loads of them on us. His might not have been as important or relevant as the facts in my earlier comment, but we can't deny that he did bring the facts.

My post was 100% indisputably factually correct.

[PTP]

Nope - employed for tax purposes does not mean employed for employee benefit purposes (you can be the former and not the latter) so that back holiday may not be available.

No Rights Employee is a whole site highlighting what it means...

Yes it's a whole site highlighting what is currently happening, but not necessarily what companies will get away with.

And this is backed up by IR35 barrister Alexander Wilson (rightly or wrongly):

IR35 - Risk to Client / Business

The IR35 test is the same test as the common law test for employment.

That bears repeating: It is the same test. The legislation specifically lifts the common law test directly into the statute.

By unilaterally declaring that the engagement is "inside IR35" you will be unilaterally declaring that the common law employment test is met.

If an IR35 assessment is correct, the only correct assessment on employment status will follow suit.

[northernladuk]

I now anticipate this thread going completely pear-shaped.

:rollin