• 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 "UTT gives HMRC another spanking."

Collapse

  • WordIsBond
    replied
    If it's a turkey, and someone thinks it quacks like a duck, it says more about them than the turkey.

    I don't think there's any doubt that this is a turkey, but that doesn't make it a duck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    Let's agree to disagree then.

    If it quacks like a duck...
    Agreeing to disagree implies there anything subjective here.
    There’s not. Not outside your mind anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    Let's agree to disagree then.

    If it quacks like a duck...

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

    why on earth would they have do that?
    It's not like it's overpaid tax. It's tax paid voluntarily based on a a flawed assessment tool. HMRC will simply say that the tool isn't supposed to replace actual tax knowledge. It's simply a tool to assist.
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    So you think omission of MOO in CEST tool is just a mistake?
    MOO was omitted deliberately, but it was not illegal or fraudulent.

    HMRC have said all along the the CEST was a tool to assist in decision making, not a binding implementation of tax law. You didn't have to use it if you didn't want to.

    Their ommission of MOO was based on their opinion of how the law on employment contracts worked. There was no decision in Law to contradict them s they were able to perpetuate their argument.

    With this UTT ruling they have had that argument supporting their opinion dismissed and will have to do something about it.

    Regardless of what they do or do not do, using the CEST remains optional.

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    fraud = illegal
    you not liking it != illegal
    So you think omission of MOO in CEST tool is just a mistake?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    That sounds like a fraud to me to make people pay incorrect tax.
    fraud = illegal
    you not liking it != illegal

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

    why on earth would they have do that?
    It's not like it's overpaid tax. It's tax paid voluntarily based on a a flawed assessment tool. HMRC will simply say that the tool isn't supposed to replace actual tax knowledge. It's simply a tool to assist.
    That sounds like a fraud to me to make people pay incorrect tax.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    My prediction is that the final HMRC appeal is going to be accepted, otherwise HMRC will have to pay tax back to all those people wrongly assessed with the tool.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

    why on earth would they have do that?
    It's not like it's overpaid tax. It's tax paid voluntarily based on a a flawed assessment tool. HMRC will simply say that the tool isn't supposed to replace actual tax knowledge. It's simply a tool to assist.

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    My prediction is that the final HMRC appeal is going to be accepted, otherwise HMRC will have to pay tax back to all those people wrongly assessed with the tool.

    Leave a comment:


  • AnthonyQuinn
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    BS.......

    getting the right skills isn't easy. Any contractor, with niche skills and plenty of experience, and a track record of adding value, will still continue to operate outside IR35.
    As for the risks.... It depends.... If you're just another bum on seat they're not going to wear it. If however, you are one person, doing one critical 'job' then they'll accept the risk
    The don't want the risk of being shafted for a hundred contractors, they'll cope for one or two.
    Niche skills are niche for a reason. While there is not much supply there's not much demand either. If there was a lot of demand then it wouldn't be niche, it would be mainstream.

    There will be no contracts for a while. Get over it. You will then accept whatever is offered. Its not as if clients are going to be flush with the mother of all recessions looming.

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    What is staggering is that people believe this legislation is to make contractors pay taxes like employees and dismiss "no rights employment" that is being created as a side effect of this legislation as a non-sense.
    They firmly believe contractors pay no tax and they work just like employees - the HMRC propaganda has completely soaked in without any resistance.

    It will be fun to watch when most permies loving this reform will get brolly contract to sign in April

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    The CEST tool guidance says this:

    Note that HMRC will not stand by results achieved through contrived arrangements that have been deliberately created
    or designed to get a particular outcome. They would see this as deliberate non-compliance, and you risk financial
    penalties.


    That means HMRC could say they could take you on the inside contract, but created the outside arrangement to avoid tax.

    There is no way around that I am afraid.
    Yes. 'We will stand by it until we find some reason to not' Sounded similar to the other similar sounding promise from the HMRC that said, 'We won't investigate back dated cases, unless we suspect we can.'

    So currently we have Jesse who's sure there have never been nor will there be a likelihood of PSC bans, and an HMRC that is getting itself spanked with a CEST tool that They say is fit for purpose even though the courts have been telling them, and will continue to tell them otherwise.

    If there was an emoji for Head in Sand... Or Hopelessness.

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    Once the insurance market gears up then yes, I think they will.

    Anyone providing IR35 investigation insurance for contractors now is going to look to move that business over to the clients. At least a couple of the providers had plans in place until the changes got postponed.

    The corporate attitude to risk is almost always "We need to do this, it carries a risk, how can we insure against it?" Once they have that insurance they will carry on as they see fit.

    There have been some notable areas where blanket bans were brought in, primarily in banking, but one they realise they are going to struggle to get the right skills market forces will drive them to change their position.

    It won't happen overnight, but it will happen in the same way it has happened in the public sector. Public sector bodies have effectively self insured as a business cost as they don't actually care that much, it's all the governments money anyway and bodies like the Home Office have the clout to push back against HMRC when they have to.
    Isn't the cost of creating IR35 proof contracts, finding proper and proven insurance company (just because company claims they can insure, doesn't mean they will not have a fine print effectively making it useless) plus additional stress, going to nullify the cost difference?
    When banking changes their working practices after declaring their roles inside, to be outside again isn't HMRC going to think they do it solely to help avoid tax?
    Ultimately the view appears to be that if the role can be done by a staff member, then it cannot be outside.
    Have a look at guidances and cases studies that have been released recently. Possibility to genuinely have someone "outside" is very limited.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    Do you think the client will have time and money for years long battles in court, potentially for each contractor, even if they are likely going to win?
    Once the insurance market gears up then yes, I think they will.

    Anyone providing IR35 investigation insurance for contractors now is going to look to move that business over to the clients. At least a couple of the providers had plans in place until the changes got postponed.

    The corporate attitude to risk is almost always "We need to do this, it carries a risk, how can we insure against it?" Once they have that insurance they will carry on as they see fit.

    There have been some notable areas where blanket bans were brought in, primarily in banking, but one they realise they are going to struggle to get the right skills market forces will drive them to change their position.

    It won't happen overnight, but it will happen in the same way it has happened in the public sector. Public sector bodies have effectively self insured as a business cost as they don't actually care that much, it's all the governments money anyway and bodies like the Home Office have the clout to push back against HMRC when they have to.

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    They can say it but they would have to prove it in court. Provided the contract terms and conditions match the working arrangements they will struggle to do that. Results from the tax tribunals are a clear indication of that. HMRC have consistency lost 90+% of the cases they bring, despite the fact that they supposedly only bring the ones they think they can win.

    In any event the only real change will be that the liability post reform will sit with the client not the contractor so the incentive is there for them to get it right. The actual law remains the same and the burden of proof required to defend, or to prosecute for HMRC, remains the same.
    Do you think the client will have time and money for years long battles in court, potentially for each contractor, even if they are likely going to win?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X