Reply to: More

[northernladuk]

Wonder what ever happened to the (expensive) campaign by HMRC to simplify the tax regime?

Got too complicated so they canned it.

[NigelJK]

Wonder what ever happened to the (expensive) campaign by HMRC to simplify the tax regime?

[northernladyuk]

If you can't be bothered to actually read the thread in context, or lack the ability to see how different posts relate to each other, there's little point making further attempts to clarify it for you. You could try to read the posts in sequence but I doubt you'd make the effort.

God I love the Internet.

[vetran]

Do traffic warders still exist? I thought they were all parking attendants who work for private companies and get bonuses the more tickets they write.

tru dat!

Vetran goes gangsta

[d000hg]

Well, my opening post discrediting your idiotic premise did just that. Using a professional tax advisor, whose services I have paid for, to determine the most efficient legal method of remuneration seems an intelligent and logical thing to do. Clearly you don't think it's appropriate. If you've got money to burn, then good for you, but I've got a family to think of.

If you can't be bothered to actually read the thread in context, or lack the ability to see how different posts relate to each other, there's little point making further attempts to clarify it for you. You could try to read the posts in sequence but I doubt you'd make the effort.

[SueEllen]

or HMRC will suggest that helping them will decrease the likelihood they are investigated for something else.

HMRC seem to make traffic wardens look honest.

Do traffic warders still exist? I thought they were all parking attendants who work for private companies and get bonuses the more tickets they write.

[LondonManc]

None of your previous posts suggest that.

The argument "I'm not abusing the system by avoiding tax because HMRC are 'doing OK from me'" is such an argument though, maybe PurpleGorilla ate some alphabites.

Well, my opening post discrediting your idiotic premise did just that. Using a professional tax advisor, whose services I have paid for, to determine the most efficient legal method of remuneration seems an intelligent and logical thing to do. Clearly you don't think it's appropriate. If you've got money to burn, then good for you, but I've got a family to think of.

[vetran]

Or the client will be uncooperative and say to every question - "It's all in the contract" Worried that if they say anything HMRC will investigate them for something.

or HMRC will suggest that helping them will decrease the likelihood they are investigated for something else.

HMRC seem to make traffic wardens look honest.

[northernladuk]

One thing I've wondered, where does a furlough sit with MoO? Clearly it's a big IR35 tick (financial risk, etc.), but wondered if it was enough to prove MoO doesn't exist?

Furlough is not MoO or Financial risk IMO. And same to Veteran. MoO is about offering and accepting work outside of the current agreed schedule, either during or after the assignment. What you do inside that agreement is D&C/part and parcel and other things.

Genuine limited company contractors outside IR35 should neither expect nor receive such mutuality of obligation. A contractor’s limited company should be engaged on contract for services basis, to perform a specific task for a specific project, and once the project is over the contractor moves on, or may be offered a new project by the client.

Even that is wrong, it should say new contract by the client at the end but it's close enough.

For example, a contractor may be working on a project specified in the contract and the client then asks the contractor to do something outside of the scope of the original contract. If the contractor completes the task, this is evidence of mutuality of obligation.

So to add to PC's D&C woe's he's got evidence of MoO and his RoS is a bit of a sham.

So Furlough is good for IR35 as it's only generally something that happens to contractors but it's only the same as us telling the client we are unavailable to work when we go on hols etc. It's not one of the main pillars though, just some good working practices for us.
I don't think it demonstrates risk though. We are on T&M basis. Not working is part of that. Furloughs are often in the contract as well so it's not a risk, it's part of the contract. Financial risk for us is having to fix stuff in our own time etc.

[northernladuk]

I was merely questioning your adamant statement that PC was doomed, absolutely, unconditionally and without question because "D&C is proven at any level".........

But Hey you seem to want to continue your somewhat tired and tedious trolling of PC at every opportunity no matter........... :-)

Ah.. right.. OK.. Yeah.. Thanks for that. Of all the posts I troll PC with this one wasn't really the best one to pick. I put it in clear terms from what I've heard and read to help him wake up and smell the coffee and then he can make a more informed decision rather than being OK cause he's borderline. He makes an overly woolly assessment of his status, I make an overly strong one and maybe we'll meet in the middle.

But hey, if it got you on the forum so we can say hello again then it wasn't for naught.

[SueEllen]

yes it has, plenty of write ups out there. However HMRC will approach the client & say "so if the contractor refuses to work on go live date would you consider that a breach? and if he finishes work at 4:45 can he leave early?" To which the client say "yes that's a breach and no it would upset my other staff" Job done MOO established.

Or the client will be uncooperative and say to every question - "It's all in the contract" Worried that if they say anything HMRC will investigate them for something.

[SueEllen]

So you are saying 0.002% of speeding convictions actually succeed because the other guilty parties hire great lawyers? Gotta get me one of those!

Most speeding offences are heard in magistrates courts, and magistrates are lay people. Regardless it is still up to you to get representation so you either get off or your mitigating circumstances help you avoid a harsh sentence.

The laws are ambiguous & poorly planned they are the problem not those that interpret them to their advantage (in the opinion of a bunch of halfwits on an internet bulletin board).

If you want to win in a court prove it using a clear and exact set of conditions(e.g. if X=1 Y<7 and Z is null).

if you want to create fear and uncertainty that wastes money & time then create the uncertainty of IR35 (e.g. if in the plaintiff's opinion based on no evidence the defendant is guilty).

This is why QDOS win again & again. The government screwed it up.


Now I think BOS contractors should pay more tax than actual businesses but I think it should be possible to decide which you are by a clear set of rules based on fact not opinion. I have been both but some of my businesses could have been seen as BOS by HMRC if they chose to do so.

The law is poorly worded to spread FUD. You can then add further to that FUD by the fact that some people are too stupid, mean or both to spend money on getting tax investigation insurance. This means if you have a case where someone has legal representation and another where someone doesn't, you know who to bother harassing.

[Dactylion]

AIUI, HMRC need to prove the existence of all three; the contractor needs to prove the absence of one (although there is the double negative in that you need to prove the absence of the existence of mutuality of obligation )

:-)

Yeah, something more along the lines of this in theory and but yes Dacty is kinda right. It might be easier to say IR35 is decided on these pillars. Trying to work out exactly what to defend/prove makes my brain hurt. Which ever way it is HMRC will be out to use those to prove you are inside.

I was merely questioning your adamant statement that PC was doomed, absolutely, unconditionally and without question because "D&C is proven at any level".........

But Hey you seem to want to continue your somewhat tired and tedious trolling of PC at every opportunity no matter........... :-)

[vetran]

I'm not au fait enough with all the IR35 tribunals to know whether it's ever been argued or not, but my amateur legal thinking would be that if the client can (and does) say "there is nothing for you to do, go away for a bit and then come back and complete the work that you are contracted to deliver" then that would be a significant pointer towards a lack of mutuality of obligation.

Would be interesting to see whether any of the cases have included that in their legal argument. Maybe if someone knows Seb at Qdos personally they could ask him for an opinion.

yes it has, plenty of write ups out there. However HMRC will approach the client & say "so if the contractor refuses to work on go live date would you consider that a breach? and if he finishes work at 4:45 can he leave early?" To which the client say "yes that's a breach and no it would upset my other staff" Job done MOO established.

[vetran]

People get off or reduced speeding convicts for turning up with decent lawyers, so it's not surprising the same happens in other areas of law.

So you are saying 0.002% of speeding convictions actually succeed because the other guilty parties hire great lawyers? Gotta get me one of those!

The laws are ambiguous & poorly planned they are the problem not those that interpret them to their advantage (in the opinion of a bunch of halfwits on an internet bulletin board).

If you want to win in a court prove it using a clear and exact set of conditions(e.g. if X=1 Y<7 and Z is null).

if you want to create fear and uncertainty that wastes money & time then create the uncertainty of IR35 (e.g. if in the plaintiff's opinion based on no evidence the defendant is guilty).

This is why QDOS win again & again. The government screwed it up.


Now I think BOS contractors should pay more tax than actual businesses but I think it should be possible to decide which you are by a clear set of rules based on fact not opinion. I have been both but some of my businesses could have been seen as BOS by HMRC if they chose to do so.