Reply to: Lorraine Kelly wins £1.2m tax case against HMRC over ITV work

[DoctorStrangelove]

What is going to happen soon is new higher rate of corp tax for PSCs

Vote Tory for A Better Britain(tm).

It's Only Fair(tm).

The Pound in Your Pocket(tm).

[AtW]

Why? You only need to have one of the three main pillars in your defence. I don’t think even HMRC are dumb enough to think an appeal on the basis of a slightly fettered substitution clause would get anywhere.

What is going to happen soon is new higher rate of corp tax for PSCs

[Mordac]

Never under estimate the stupidity of HR.

I was having an argument with somebody yesterday who said that LK was on the fiddle because she used her own limited company that only the rich have access to and she should have been a sole trader. He then went on to say that there is no reason for anybody to user a limited company and that those who do are on the fiddle. So all self employed should be a sole trader.

But so many do....

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Yes, sounds like grounds for appeal

Why? You only need to have one of the three main pillars in your defence. I don’t think even HMRC are dumb enough to think an appeal on the basis of a slightly fettered substitution clause would get anywhere.

[AtW]

I see. That's that "sham" form of substitution, right?

Yes, sounds like grounds for appeal

[billybiro]

Yes, she had some form of right of substitution although ITV had the right to reject if unsuitable. It wasn't a key factor in the case.

I see. That's that "sham" form of substitution, right?

[billybiro]

Doubt it. And why would they pay 3x - 5x the price, for tuliptier service, just to avoid a smidge of IR35 aggro?

Like I say, there aren't suddenly going to be magical extra people with my skillset around so I can't see why the market rate would suddenly plummet.

"And why would they pay 3x - 5x the price, for tuliptier service, just to avoid a smidge of IR35 aggro?"

Because it's significantly easier. And that "smidge of aggro" could be very costly to the company in terms of time and resource (and thus money) that it could very well mean that paying 3x -5x the price actually makes economical sense.

However, it isn't even going to be 3x - 5x the cost. With all of the IR35 aggro that will be caused to contractors by the changes, it means that your rates are going to have to go up, putting you much closer to the rate of the consultancies.

Unless you're telling me that you're fully prepared to absorb the increased taxation you'll be subjected to from your current rate and see your take home pay take a nosedive?

[BoredBloke]

Doubt it. And why would they pay 3x - 5x the price, for tuliptier service, just to avoid a smidge of IR35 aggro?

Like I say, there aren't suddenly going to be magical extra people with my skillset around so I can't see why the market rate would suddenly plummet.

Never under estimate the stupidity of HR.

I was having an argument with somebody yesterday who said that LK was on the fiddle because she used her own limited company that only the rich have access to and she should have been a sole trader. He then went on to say that there is no reason for anybody to user a limited company and that those who do are on the fiddle. So all self employed should be a sole trader.

[vwdan]

No, but you can be easily replaced by any number of permie-tractors that can be supplied to your clients by any one of the "Big 4" consultancies.

Doubt it. And why would they pay 3x - 5x the price, for tuliptier service, just to avoid a smidge of IR35 aggro?

Like I say, there aren't suddenly going to be magical extra people with my skillset around so I can't see why the market rate would suddenly plummet.

[billybiro]

Oh, there's going to be a sudden flood of expertise into the country? My skills are suddenly no longer going to be required?

No, but you can be easily replaced by any number of permie-tractors that can be supplied to your clients by any one of the "Big 4" consultancies.

[Zigenare]

Good for her.

I'm actually god's gift to C++, I merely portray the part of a beerswilling layabout for the benefit of the client.

Funny that, 'coz I'm a beerswilling layabout, I merely portray the part of being God's gift to C++ for the benefit of my employer!

[AtW]

42 weeks per year, 4 weeks holidays - leaves 4 weeks for “substitutes”

If “substitues” were as good as her then why they were not hired?

[DaveB]

Could she send in a substitute??

From the AccountingWeb article

Right to provide a substitute

Although the programme was aired throughout the year, Kelly was only required to provide her services for 42 weeks per year and she was instrumental in identifying substitute presenters for the periods she was absent. ITV could determine whether or not to accept that substitute.

[AtW]

Yes, she had some form of right of substitution although ITV had the right to reject if unsuitable. It wasn't a key factor in the case.

And maybe this will be key in inevitable appeal - even though i think they will just go for new higher band of corp tax for PSCs, and for good measure hike dividend tax again

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Could she send in a substitute??

Yes, she had some form of right of substitution although ITV had the right to reject if unsuitable. It wasn't a key factor in the case.