Originally posted by Maslins
View Post
- 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!
Collapse
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "How does being inside IR35 work if you have staff?"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostI thought that 30k redundancy payment was only tax-free if non-contractual
Originally posted by jamesbrown View Postand, more importantly, that the tax-free element disappeared in 2018... pretty sure they made contractual and non-contractual PILONs taxable at that point.
Is it possible to have non-contractual PILON?! Surely to be PILON (payment in lieu of notice), there must be an agreed (ie in a contract) notice period. If the notice period is in the contract, payment for it is also obligatory. Hence to my mind payment for any notice period must be contractual, so in turn PILON must be contractual too?
Anyway, I think we're agreed Really Not Real's wife's redundancy would not qualify as tax free, sorry RNR! In practice I struggle to think of any situations where a contractor type company could pay out a £30k tax free redundancy to the owner/significant other.
Leave a comment:
-
Correct in that the £30k is not an allowance but rather a limit provided certain conditions are met.
For example, paying somebody £5k a year for 2 years and then a £30k redundancy, would almost certainly not qualify the £30k for relief.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Really Not Real View Post- Market rate absolutely.
- T&C's are contained inside something commonly called a contract.
- An element of humour re: rehiring after redundancy, but yes I'm already suitably brushed up on redundancy (i.e. there is no restriction on re-employing somebody [the same person] who has been made redundant) are you?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostAt a market rate for the time and level of her duties I'm sure. That's nice but it's a contract she needs. Not T&Cs.
Might need to brush up on the laws around redundancy there fella.- Market rate absolutely.
- T&C's are contained inside something commonly called a contract.
- An element of humour re: rehiring after redundancy, but yes I'm already suitably brushed up on redundancy (i.e. there is no restriction on re-employing somebody [the same person] who has been made redundant) are you?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Really Not Real View PostWell, I employ the wife (for accountancy, office admin, etc.) and have done so for the last 8 years.According to her T&C's (yes she really has them!)
I guess I'll just have to put her on a rehire-redundancy-rehire-redundancy loop..
Leave a comment:
-
Redundancy
Originally posted by Jakes Daddy View PostI am contracting for a large bank via an agency. As with most I'm bracing myself for the new rules in April 2020 and trying to understand any potential impact as best I can. I don't hold much confidence in the client and agency being particularly contractor friendly, especially given another bank's recent position on the matter (HSBC), so am bracing myself for a worst case scenario Inside IR35 decision
At the moment, the model is well understood. From an invoice, we take off business expenses such as salary, pension contributions, accountancy fees etc. What's left is the gross profit. 20% of that goes to corporation tax, leaving net profit which can be paid as dividend. Easy.
As I understand it, if caught by IR35 we get a 5% business expenses allowance, and the rest is assumed to be personal income and will be taxed as such by the agency. So 95% of my invoice will be treated as if it is personal income and will be taxed at source. That's OK if your limited co only employs you (well, it's not, but that's another argument), but what happens if you have staff costs other than your own?
In my case I employ a part time office administrator on a 1 day a week basis. I pay her a small salary and pension contributions.
In the Inside IR35 model, my need for an office admin doesn't change, so I still need to employ her and pay her. But the company income that I would be paying her from would already have been taxed on the incorrect assumption that all of that income is mine.
Are there provisions in the Inside IR35 rules to cover staff costs like this? How is it meant to work?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostIt does illustrate the absurdity of IR35. When you have multiple fee-earners working for you, but no guarantee that they will be constantly fee-earning, there's the risk that IR35 could force you to pay their salaries, at times, out of funds on which you are personally taxed, and which you will never receive. And of course, they also would be taxed on those particular funds.
This is unlikely to happen now but it certainly could have happened in my first two years if someone had decided that my contracts should be inside IR35, because my own contracts were indeed subsidising salaries I was paying. And some of those contracts were borderline. I kept a printout of the BET in case I was ever challenged because, unlike most contractors, those who actually employ people (beyond paying the Mrs for bookkeeping) were helped by the BET. It had been withdrawn by then but I was advised that a BET showing me clearly in business for myself would be helpful if HMRC ever came calling.
It's absurd to argue that someone who is really employing people and using the proceeds of his contract to pay them is in hidden employment, whatever the working practices. But then, IR35 is stupid anyway.
Is anyone at IPSE asking Tory leadership candidates to commit to revisit Brown's baby?
don't hold your breath!
Leave a comment:
-
I recall the original Mrs Mopp example from way back when where it's morally OK to send skivvys to do the work for you but woe betide you should you ever deign to get your own hands dirty. Appalling.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostIt wasn't new then - all these discussions were had over the original IR35 first formulated in 1999.
Leave a comment:
-
It does illustrate the absurdity of IR35. When you have multiple fee-earners working for you, but no guarantee that they will be constantly fee-earning, there's the risk that IR35 could force you to pay their salaries, at times, out of funds on which you are personally taxed, and which you will never receive. And of course, they also would be taxed on those particular funds.
This is unlikely to happen now but it certainly could have happened in my first two years if someone had decided that my contracts should be inside IR35, because my own contracts were indeed subsidising salaries I was paying. And some of those contracts were borderline. I kept a printout of the BET in case I was ever challenged because, unlike most contractors, those who actually employ people (beyond paying the Mrs for bookkeeping) were helped by the BET. It had been withdrawn by then but I was advised that a BET showing me clearly in business for myself would be helpful if HMRC ever came calling.
It's absurd to argue that someone who is really employing people and using the proceeds of his contract to pay them is in hidden employment, whatever the working practices. But then, IR35 is stupid anyway.
Is anyone at IPSE asking Tory leadership candidates to commit to revisit Brown's baby?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostNone of this is new. It's been in place in the Public Sector quite awhile now.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simes View PostGrief.
This becoming more and more depressing by the minute.
Next they will turn around and say that buying property and renting it out is now No longer a viable Pension option and all landlords will have to give their investments to the undeserving.
Oh.. and for Simes and everyone else that's way behind the times. None of this is new. It's been in place in the Public Sector quite awhile now.
Maybe someone should update TF's sticky and make it generic to cover both so we don't have to go over this ad infinitum?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simes View PostGrief.
This becoming more and more depressing by the minute.
Next they will turn around and say that buying property and renting it out is now No longer a viable Pension option and all landlords will have to give their investments to the undeserving.
Leave a comment:
-
Grief.
This becoming more and more depressing by the minute.
Next they will turn around and say that buying property and renting it out is now No longer a viable Pension option and all landlords will have to give their investments to the undeserving.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: