FYI -
http://www.contractoruk.com/news/004309.html
And some further reading for anyone finding this through Google:
What is a Service Company? (HMRC's definition)
IT contractors don't have to answer Q6 on P35
- 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: P35 Qu 6
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 "P35 Qu 6"
Collapse
-
I've just done my return, answered YES/NO.
I'm your typical IT contractor but I've made sure my contract has been reviewed and found outside of IR35.
I can't see how reading the helpsheet you could answer NO to part 1 if you are (like me) a typical contractor using a Ltd. Yes I performed services for a client, yes there was a contract between the client and the company of which I was a shareholder and yes the companies income during the year was more than half dervied from those services...
So I'm taking honesty as my policy.... (probably where tax is concerned not the best option )
Quote helpsheet:
The first question should be answered yes if:
• an individual performed services (intellectual, manual
or a mixture of the two) for a client or clients, and
• the services were provided under a contract between
the client and the company of which, at any time
during the tax year, the individual performing the
services was a shareholder or partner, and
• the company’s income was, at any time during the tax
year, derived wholly or mainly (that is, more than half
of it) from the services performed by the shareholders
or partners personally.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Little'Old Me View PostThe accountacyweb from the link (have you read it?) article includes the following example:
"2. A firm of accountants – two partners, and no staff
Clearly, once again we have a potential “service company” for Question 6, as this time we have a partnership. The responses to points one and two are an unequivocal “yes”. On to point three. Once again are these services performed “personally” by the partners? There is no doubt that if they are, the answer is yes and we have to go on and consider Question 2. But what if the firm employed someone? Although there are no employees at the moment, does this mean that the firm could use the services of any available and suitably qualified individual to perform the services for the client? I think they could, and here I contest the use of “personally”. Neither of the partners performs the services in his personal capacity, and the services could easily be provided by someone else within the firm. So I’m thinking “no” to point three, making part 1 a “no” again.
As I have shown, although the guidance is much improved over last year, the entire question turns on the interpretation of the word “personally” in part 1 of the question. If I am right, then the question should not be an issue for many businesses currently concerned about this issue. Part 1 being negative, part 2 follows as a negative – job done."
I'm happy with this interpretation and intend to follow it until the HMRC tell me otherwise. I am satisfied I am following their rules and therefore am not intentionally doing anything wrong.
The PCG, QDOS and most accountants seem to have taken the view we should answer yes/no. I am not so happy with that interpretation and so want to get all the facts clear in my head.
The problem with the "I can substitute" argument is that there seem to be some pretty clear comments against it, such as the one I have already posted (have you read it?) which states
I was on the ICAEW committee that met HMRC on this one, and regret to inform you that they think that 'personally' means 'in person' as the last commentator suggested.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostFor the last ******* time, you dont need to answer this question!
And that is advice I have from tax counsel.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lewis View PostThat time of year again and I am still not sure about this question on the P35. I have read all the latest threads I can find on various sites and it still does not seem clear cut to me except it seems most experts are recommending yes/no for a IR35 not-caught company. Possibly the best thread is this one http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-b...%20%25B%20%25Y.
So what is everyone else going to answer and why?
And that is advice I have from tax counsel.
Leave a comment:
-
The accountacyweb from the link (have you read it?) article includes the following example:
"2. A firm of accountants – two partners, and no staff
Clearly, once again we have a potential “service company” for Question 6, as this time we have a partnership. The responses to points one and two are an unequivocal “yes”. On to point three. Once again are these services performed “personally” by the partners? There is no doubt that if they are, the answer is yes and we have to go on and consider Question 2. But what if the firm employed someone? Although there are no employees at the moment, does this mean that the firm could use the services of any available and suitably qualified individual to perform the services for the client? I think they could, and here I contest the use of “personally”. Neither of the partners performs the services in his personal capacity, and the services could easily be provided by someone else within the firm. So I’m thinking “no” to point three, making part 1 a “no” again.
As I have shown, although the guidance is much improved over last year, the entire question turns on the interpretation of the word “personally” in part 1 of the question. If I am right, then the question should not be an issue for many businesses currently concerned about this issue. Part 1 being negative, part 2 follows as a negative – job done."
I'm happy with this interpretation and intend to follow it until the HMRC tell me otherwise. I am satisfied I am following their rules and therefore am not intentionally doing anything wrong.
Leave a comment:
-
I answered yes/no last year and will do so again this year..
It appears a bit more clear cut this year than last, but either way if you're confident you're operating outside of IR35 yes/no is perfectly valid and defendable (should it come to that).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Weltchy View PostDunno about you guys, but I regularly invoke my right of substitution, and also provide my skills as a substitute for other contractors when they are unavailable to work!
The theory goes... (1) as an individual you have performed services during the year, (2) services were provided under contract and you were a director or shareholder and (3) more than half the company income was derived from you doing the work.
So that is Yes/No (assuming you are outside IR35) even if you have provided a substitute and been a substitute. Although clearly this helps your IR35 status people like PCG, QDOS etc.. seem to think you must still answer yes/no.
Leave a comment:
-
Dunno about you guys, but I regularly invoke my right of substitution, and also provide my skills as a substitute for other contractors when they are unavailable to work!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Little'Old Me View PostSome will and others won't. I am answering no/no for any client that can confirm they could use others (employees or contractors) in their "contracts", or if more than 50% of their turnover is not for the Labour part of their services.
If a client is not sure, I ask them what would happen if you were unable to work for 6 months? Who would provide the services? If they would not continue to provide the services through their company, because they could not "contract it out", or employ someone to do it, then they are a "Service Company" and the answer is Yes/No. In these cases, the Company can only have an income if they can provide their personal services.
As an Accountant if I was not able to work for 6 months, I could easily arrange for someone else to work for my company and carry on the "services" for clients. I may not make much or any money, but the services provided by my company are not dependant on me, providing my personal services to the company, advantageous perhaps , but not essential.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Pickle2 View PostLast year I was No / No.
My understanding is that now the question has been clarified, I will be answering yes / no, along with thousands of others, be they accountants, plumbers, electricians, window cleaners, child minders, financial advisor's etc etc. or IT contractors.
If a client is not sure, I ask them what would happen if you were unable to work for 6 months? Who would provide the services? If they would not continue to provide the services through their company, because they could not "contract it out", or employ someone to do it, then they are a "Service Company" and the answer is Yes/No. In these cases, the Company can only have an income if they can provide their personal services.
As an Accountant if I was not able to work for 6 months, I could easily arrange for someone else to work for my company and carry on the "services" for clients. I may not make much or any money, but the services provided by my company are not dependant on me, providing my personal services to the company, advantageous perhaps , but not essential.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pickle2 View PostLast year I was No / No.
My understanding is that now the question has been clarified, I will be answering yes / no, along with thousands of others, be they accoutnants, plumbers, electricians, window cleaners, child minders, financial advisors etc etc. or IT contractors.
Leave a comment:
-
Last year I was No / No.
My understanding is that now the question has been clarified, I will be answering yes / no, along with thousands of others, be they accoutnants, plumbers, electricians, window cleaners, child minders, financial advisors etc etc. or IT contractors.
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: