Reply to: Dragonfly

[mrdonuts]

the closing down of a company can in no way be considered any defence against a HMRC enquiry/investigation or the liabilities and penalties which might arise as a result of such an investigation, regardless of the company having been made dormant or closed down/dissolved.

[pisces]

Anyone been investigated on closing a company or after a company has been closed?

I know someone who was taken to court over IR35 after his company was closed.

The case was thrown out becuase the company was no longer in existance.

[pisces]

The pay aint great but I can sleep relatively easy at night

I'm totally IR35 caught by the way.

In which case you're an employee not a contractor.

HTH.

[Cyberman]

The Government & its agencies are trying to promote business in the UK, aren't they? I ask, as it looks, and has looked for years, now, like they are trying to destroy the UK economy in any way they can. Recession, tax bollocks, etc., yet £10 billion on the Olympics, which will never, ever, ever make a profit, ever.

Vote Tory - got to be worth a punt.

Well said. Also, the Tories have said that they will abolish IR35 and a lot of other New Lie red tape that is killing businesses in the UK. Roll on 2010 !!

[tim123]

To be honest I don't give a flying fig on the numbers of others that have done this. I know I have used it on my last 2.

well that may help you personally, but how does it help the debate?

tim

[tim123]

Why me? I'm only an interested observer; PCG has rather bettter qualified legal advisers than me, after all. Don't make this personal, it doesn't help anyone.

Because, you're the one who posts the opinion, if you're a proxy to someone else perhaps you should say so.

And how can I make a reply that said, "what you said is wrong" not personal?

In any case, a close reading of the case suggest that what you claimed is not exactly the basis of the appeal.

You also ignore the D&C ruling

No I didn't, nobody has posted any comment upon it, and as I hadn't (this morning) read the judgment, I had nothing to say of my own on the issue.

which is perverse

It might be the one that you didn't want, but that doesn't make it perverse. ISTM that being in a role where the boss micromanages your tasks to the extent that he says "do X today" (which the evidence seems to suggest happened on a frequent basis) is more than enough D&C to be an employee if there aren't any other contra pointers - which as we've scratched the subs clause and there is most definately MOO in the contract(because he got paid even when there was no work to do), there isn't.

It always seemed to me that without the (imaginary) comfort blanket of the subs clause, this guy was so far inside IR35 that I doubt he would have bothered to claim otherwise before an IR challenge, let alone afterwards

and the range of things Dragonfly don't get that permies do, which is also perverse. If the intention of the commisioner is to find the "right" answer regardless, he will be pretty sure to select which bits of reality he uses to build his notional contract. I don't think anyone would say that was a good idea.

The "the range of things Dragonfly don't get that permies do" is factored out in the increased rate. The legislation is written with that in mind. I am not contributing to this thread to discuss whether the legislation is fair, only on whether the judge has correctly applied it.

ISTM that "not getting employee perks" doesn't count for a fig in reaching an IR35 decision because the law has been drafted to make that so.

tim

[malvolio]

It wasnt a term of endearment. He \ she needs to go back to the post and re read it very carefully!

Gosh that's scary. Now you've got that off your manly chest, how about growing up and playing nicely.

And you're still wrong, BTW.

[BolshieBastard]

I don't think he's your pal...

It wasnt a term of endearment. He \ she needs to go back to the post and re read it very carefully!

[ratewhore]

Shut your mouth pal if you dont know the history of the OP.

I don't think he's your pal...

[Fred Bloggs]

I think that is sage advice. I'll be taking a closer look at TLC35 as my current gig could drag on for a bit...

Thanks for the thought. I try to stay as aware as possible of the "issues" out there. We can never be certain what's happening next with this. But I'm trying my best to stay within a low profile regime whilst maximising my own revenue balanced against mitigating as much risk as possible. (Oh, and fingers crossed too )

[BolshieBastard]

Nice style. I hope you lose your home you twat.

Shut your mouth pal if you dont know the history of the OP.

[ratewhore]

That's has been my strategy to date (and to put as much as possible into a Ltd Co funded SIPP). However, the current gig is a long term infrastructure project that could run to 2012 +. I actually rate the gig a marginal pass/fail. I have taken out the insurance based on the risk assessment form that you are required to fill in by one of the insurers out there. They accepted my risk.

I think that is sage advice. I'll be taking a closer look at TLC35 as my current gig could drag on for a bit...

[Fred Bloggs]

You don't have to use the reliefs. Just take all as dividends.

Correct, that's why I'm "income shifting" as much as possible the last year or two.

[Lewis]

This is interesting http://www.contractoruk.com/003950.html apologies if you have read already.

[Lewis]

It's not, there are rules around folding a co. and removing the assets and doing it repeatedly can easily been seen to be evasion.

You don't have to use the reliefs. Just take all as dividends.