Reply to: BBC advises stars on avoiding tax

[swamp]

PCG is a wet fish. Use it or lose it.

[singhr]

PCG is your friend. Use it or lose it.

[swamp]

I guess we'll see then. But on the other hand how many IT contractors are likely to be caught by IR35 if they get audited, but assume they will get away with it?

Not many. PCG have recorded only several losses in over 1500 of their members' investigations.

[d000hg]

apparently they have contracts stating they cant work for competing organisations, and hector has already told them they should be employees

its a disgrace i shant be watching anymore telly in protest

I guess we'll see then. But on the other hand how many IT contractors are likely to be caught by IR35 if they get audited, but assume they will get away with it?

[mrdonuts]

TV/radio presenters are more legitimate as companies than most contractors I reckon... they tend to work with multiple clients (e.g on different channels, writing books, endorsing stuff) and I bet they decide what and how much work they put in.

apparently they have contracts stating they cant work for competing organisations, and hector has already told them they should be employees

its a disgrace i shant be watching anymore telly in protest

[swamp]

Paxman could send Esler. Esler could send Paxman.

Yes, but Paxman is probably paid more than Esler and the BBC wouldn't be happy.

[Moscow Mule]

Paxman could send Esler. Esler could send Paxman.

You've just got all the accountants on the board rubbing their hands in cross-charge anticipation...

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Looks like they are just ignoring IR35. I wonder if Paxman could send a substitute for Newsnight...?

Paxman could send Esler. Esler could send Paxman.

[sweetandsour]

Nice - now perhaps Hector will leave the rest of us alone for a while

I think it makes it more likely that there will be a blanket ban on the way we work.

[AtW]

You could apply that argument to every individual IT contractor they've molested, at least in the case of these "celebrities" they'd get a decent tax take if they won.

It costs too much to pursue single contractor - the reason they do it is to create fear so that others pay up without spending time on them.

Problem with those rich guys is that they will all have to be taken to court - they can afford good lawyers too, and generally speaking there is not that much money to get out of them anyway.

Thing is - if top presenters dodge tax then it's not a threat to the State, unless everyone else takes this as example and does the same.

[TykeMerc]

Hmm, good point. Maybe now they will... but there are not exactly a huge number of these people are there? Would the costs be justified to chase them down, or should HMRC just try scare tactics?

You could apply that argument to every individual IT contractor they've molested, at least in the case of these "celebrities" they'd get a decent tax take if they won.

[d000hg]

For light entertainment presenters, that might be the case, but for news presenters, the article indicates something different.

"Tight restrictions make it difficult for most BBC news and current affairs presenters to pick up enough outside work to justify freelance status. Many are barred from working for rival broadcasters and are forbidden to write for the press or give paid speeches in case they compromise their impartiality."

Total exclusivity - a very hard IR35 sell, so why don't HMRC start going after them with the same vigour that they attack IT.

Hmm, good point. Maybe now they will... but there are not exactly a huge number of these people are there? Would the costs be justified to chase them down, or should HMRC just try scare tactics?

[AtW]

Because IT Contractors don't have the same high profile.

No, because more money can be made from taxing middle classes: if IR is lucky they'd make 100 top presenters (if there were that many) £100k extra tax each, that's only £10 mln.

IR would much prefer to get £10k extra from 100000 middle class folks thus making £1 bln (in theory).

[Churchill]

For light entertainment presenters, that might be the case, but for news presenters, the article indicates something different.

"Tight restrictions make it difficult for most BBC news and current affairs presenters to pick up enough outside work to justify freelance status. Many are barred from working for rival broadcasters and are forbidden to write for the press or give paid speeches in case they compromise their impartiality."

Total exclusivity - a very hard IR35 sell, so why don't HMRC start going after them with the same vigour that they attack IT.

Because IT Contractors don't have the same high profile.

[centurian]

TV/radio presenters are more legitimate as companies than most contractors I reckon... they tend to work with multiple clients (e.g on different channels, writing books, endorsing stuff) and I bet they decide what and how much work they put in.

For light entertainment presenters, that might be the case, but for news presenters, the article indicates something different.

"Tight restrictions make it difficult for most BBC news and current affairs presenters to pick up enough outside work to justify freelance status. Many are barred from working for rival broadcasters and are forbidden to write for the press or give paid speeches in case they compromise their impartiality."

Total exclusivity - a very hard IR35 sell, so why don't HMRC start going after them with the same vigour that they attack IT.