employed/self employed - IR 35 liable?

[jamesbrown]

The whole article is quite incendiary.

I can't really reproduce it without breaching copyright but it's in Tax Journal.

I think they offer a trial period.

Might be worth using that to read the whole thing.

Just remember that I cannot be held responsible for any burst arteries or other cardio events.

Nothing new there. It's what they do.

[webberg]

The whole article is quite incendiary.

I can't really reproduce it without breaching copyright but it's in Tax Journal.

I think they offer a trial period.

Might be worth using that to read the whole thing.

Just remember that I cannot be held responsible for any burst arteries or other cardio events.

[cojak]

The judicial system cannot be overridden.

Parliament writes the law, the judiciary interpret it. If parliament don't like the interpretation then that's tough. They should have written it properly in the first place.

That is it in a nutshell.

[Lance]

Is he suggesting "... ensuring what Parliament intended..." means he can override what the Judicial system says?

The judicial system cannot be overridden.

Parliament writes the law, the judiciary interpret it. If parliament don't like the interpretation then that's tough. They should have written it properly in the first place.

[BrownOwl]

From a professional magazine.

The "Edward" is Edward Troup, who is HMRC's Executive Chairman, (whatever that means).

The Taylor Review

Edward politely declined to answer questions about the continuing erosion of the tax base through the growth of the gig economy, following the government’s decision not to reintroduce its Budget 2017 proposals to increase the NICs payable by self-employed workers. He said that they were a policy matter for the Treasury. I asked Edward about the government’s response to the Taylor Review. Edward said that HMRC and the Treasury would respond in relation to tax, but ‘to the extent those are policy questions, those are, indeed, for the Treasury. To the extent that they go to the rather tricky issue of what is the definition of an employed or a self-employed person, then this is very clearly a matter for HMRC. (The timing of any response is a matter for the Treasury.)’

‘And in terms of personal service companies, we have the rules in IR35, the scope of which has been extended, or rather, the burden of which has been extended by shifting the responsibility for the tax payment to the engager, in the case of the public sector. It is clearly necessary for HMRC to ensure compliance with rules that are designed to ensure that an individual, who is for practical purposes an employee, should pay the same tax as someone who is actually employed. To the extent that the opportunity offers itself, we will be looking for ways of ensuring that what parliament intended, in terms of collecting tax on employment, is collected. We’ll be working with the Treasury to look at areas where there is disguised self-employment, or where the benefits of employment are being obtained without the amount of tax which parliament has set out as being applicable to employees being paid.’

Is he suggesting "... ensuring what Parliament intended..." means he can override what the Judicial system says?

[webberg]

From a professional magazine.

The "Edward" is Edward Troup, who is HMRC's Executive Chairman, (whatever that means).

The Taylor Review

Edward politely declined to answer questions about the continuing erosion of the tax base through the growth of the gig economy, following the government’s decision not to reintroduce its Budget 2017 proposals to increase the NICs payable by self-employed workers. He said that they were a policy matter for the Treasury. I asked Edward about the government’s response to the Taylor Review. Edward said that HMRC and the Treasury would respond in relation to tax, but ‘to the extent those are policy questions, those are, indeed, for the Treasury. To the extent that they go to the rather tricky issue of what is the definition of an employed or a self-employed person, then this is very clearly a matter for HMRC. (The timing of any response is a matter for the Treasury.)’

‘And in terms of personal service companies, we have the rules in IR35, the scope of which has been extended, or rather, the burden of which has been extended by shifting the responsibility for the tax payment to the engager, in the case of the public sector. It is clearly necessary for HMRC to ensure compliance with rules that are designed to ensure that an individual, who is for practical purposes an employee, should pay the same tax as someone who is actually employed. To the extent that the opportunity offers itself, we will be looking for ways of ensuring that what parliament intended, in terms of collecting tax on employment, is collected. We’ll be working with the Treasury to look at areas where there is disguised self-employment, or where the benefits of employment are being obtained without the amount of tax which parliament has set out as being applicable to employees being paid.’