• 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 "Lorraine Kelly wins £1.2m tax case against HMRC over ITV work"

Collapse

  • DoctorStrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordac
    replied
    Originally posted by BoredBloke View Post
    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....

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCyclingProgrammer
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by billybiro View Post
    I see. That's that "sham" form of substitution, right?
    Yes, sounds like grounds for appeal

    Leave a comment:


  • billybiro
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • billybiro
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • vwdan
    replied
    Originally posted by billybiro View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • billybiro
    replied
    Originally posted by vwdan View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by Ebenezer View Post
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by 1 Jack Kada View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCyclingProgrammer
    replied
    Originally posted by 1 Jack Kada View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X