- 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!
Reply to: HMRC lose ir35 case
Collapse
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "HMRC lose ir35 case"
Collapse
-
It seems from that that they often seek to apply the standard conditions of a company in taking on contractors when in fact, they do not always apply. I have more than once been taken on by a different route via contacts with different conditions, working part time due to other contracts etc. Essential to document all these things.
-
Originally posted by maxima View PostThese people a losers who refused to accept to be contractor (see below).
in my definition are under IR35
But what Hector wants is not nessarly what hector gets. If that was case everyone would give all their money to hector and then hector would decide what was minimum they needed to live on, give them that back and keep the rest. This is why the courts > Hector
I believe that 'contractors' are self-employed
You won't get far (I know because I tried years ago) because of the possible legal ramifications hector created for anyone using registered self employed persons
Really the simple fact is Hector would like everyone to be controlled, classified as employee and thus on PAYEE and feeling like the government is being nice with things like ISA's
If you are not a large company with lots of employees or one of those employees, aka Self employed, Entrepreneur, Contractor you are quite simply not very welcome in this country by the tax man
Leave a comment:
-
Last post was : 17th January 2008, 11:24
I am no Denny neither I am Jesus. Just irritated that most of you still dont get the real problem.
Leave a comment:
-
Have you been drinking?
You resurrected an old thread just to post nonsense?
Are you Denny?
Leave a comment:
-
for simplicity I divide people on contractors, consulters and others.
Consulters are those who does 'proper' business - have office, hire people (even temporary for a project), advertise themselves or anyhow goes directly to end-client. I would say there are few dozen of such businesses in London which run by average Joe and employs 2-3 people. (I dont mean big consulting businesses). These people a losers who refused to accept to be contractor (see below).
Contractors (me for instance) are one-guy bands which effectively sells his/her own arse (knowledge, experience, health) to end-client through agents. There are thousands of them in London.
As I said a year ago and repeat it now (especially after reading this document - http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/pdfs/ir56.pdf) - all contractors in my definition are under IR35 however they pose to be businesses, buying IR35 insurances and including fictious clauses in their contract (c'mon - how many of those used substitute in past 5 years? 2?)
I believe that 'contractors' are self-employed but the way we sell our services are different from what 'regular' businesses do (and that is defined at that pdf).
I said before and repeat now - current legislation lacks definition/clarification/instruction for a form of self-employement de facto and historically created by us - 'contractors' and end-clients who need that specific services which can be delivered by us only and not temp/perm employees.
This lack in the law hasnt been covered artificially as it is another possibility to skin the cow for the government.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chugnut View PostIt sounds like you can't simply cannot declare yourself outside of IR35 with any confidence unless: -
a) the agency supplies you the upper level contract (very unlikely since it is technically nothing to do with you) and the outside-IR35 indicators are present in both.
b) the agency supplies you confirmation in writing that nothing in the upper level contract will invalidate any terms in your lower level contract with regard to your IR35 position.
c) go direct - very difficult in many cases.
If you can achieve any of the above then I think you're there. Certainly defensible by PCG, QDOS, etc. Otherwise, it now seems that your own contract is worthless and all the working practices questionnaires in the world won't overrule the upper level contract.
I also think there is small print in the insurers docs which will void any payment in the event of other issues coming to light which would have prevented cover being offered in the first place. I would say this includes contradictory terms in the upper level contract.
Using Ardesco's analogy, I would never consider a builder to be my employee whether he worked in a team, on his own, subbed or didn't sub, but I would expect to check his work (called a snagging list FFS!) and provide updates on progress. Who wouldn't? Still not my employee though.
Does the client want a contractor to deliver a specific piece of work (probably within a specific time) for a cost (either fixed or T+M) and then say thank you very much, goodbye or do they want a temp, who will work like any other employee, fits in with the team, doesn't cause any fuss, accepts work as it comes and hangs around until the work level drops off or they are replaced with a permanent employee.
I know which one the agency would rather sell in. IMO contracting through an agency is not how a legitimate business would run, unless the contract for services is directly between the client and the contractor.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ratewhore View PostAgreed. Assuming the 64K dividend is split 50-50, Hector would be looking to see the non-working spouses contribution to the business...
The fact that you follow your accountants paid-for professional recommendation in good faith to legally minimise your tax bill seems to count for diddly squat in HMRC's eyes. They're NOT listening.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chugnut View PostWhilst the above is perfectly legal, given the Revenue's increasingly aggressive stance on avoidance year on year, then an investigation in (say) 3-4 years time into the above method will be challenged with the adopted HMRC mindset at the time it's investigated, not the time it was adopted.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ASB View PostDepends on circumstance. Personally my non working spouse held a major shareholding. In the 100k example:-
Salary 2 x 5k. NI/TAX nill.
Gross profit = 90k. CT = 18k. Net = 72k
Dividends = 64k.
Higher rate tax nil. Retained earnings 8k - later extraction via ESC16 with no CGT.
Could have extract the 8k bringing 2k higher rate tax. Total tax paid in this scenarios would be 18k CT + 2k higher rate.
Extreme, possibly. But it was achievable. And won't be from March of course.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ratewhore View Posteh? What about salary and the associated PAYE/NI for starters?
Salary 2 x 5k. NI/TAX nill.
Gross profit = 90k. CT = 18k. Net = 72k
Dividends = 64k.
Higher rate tax nil. Retained earnings 8k - later extraction via ESC16 with no CGT.
Could have extract the 8k bringing 2k higher rate tax. Total tax paid in this scenarios would be 18k CT + 2k higher rate.
Extreme, possibly. But it was achievable. And won't be from March of course.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ardesco View PostWell you originally implied they would get more tax from a permie than from a contractor which isn't necessarily true.
It obviously depends on the individual circumstances, how tax efficient the contractor can potentially be.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: