Another IR35 wake up call

[BR14]

WGAFF?

[suityou01]

Yep, if everyone being investigated regularly writes to them by signed delivery asking harmless but unimpeachable questions they will soon be inundated with post. You could say that it is your Co's policy to send all legal correspondence this way.

Also don't forget to put HMRC on hold if they call, or better yet get an IVR with a labyrinth of nested options with only one going to your mobile and the rest to voicemail.

Also don't forget to ask them if they would like to open a case, or follow your in house grievance procedures, and issue them with a reference number and ask them to quote this in all future correspondence.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

[JohntheBike]

If I'm missing something then please explain what as I can't see it.


- If you're a genuine B2B contractor you cant have any benefits from being an employee.
- If you're an employee you have rights (or should have) and pay tax by PAYE.
- If you're self-employed you have no (very few rights) and pay tax as self-employed.
- If you're a disguised employee (for tax purposes) and you then take your employer to court to prove it, you are openly admitting, in public, that you have been defrauding HMRX by paying tax as a b2B contractor. You cannot have it both ways.... And if you get switched to inside don't rock the now unsteady boat.

1. No one who has had an employed for tax purposes judgement in the FTT has taken their case to the ET, let alone get a different judgement. I would guess that the BBC has covered up those issues
with their presenters who have been so judged.
2. No one as far as I've seen to date has been able to identify what aspects an FTT will take into account when considering employment status that an ET will not consider, and vice versa.
3. I have proven legally to my satisfaction, if not yours, that HMRC will not challenge an ET judgement whatever that judgement is.

Point 3 is why HMRC settled Susan Winchester's case out of court, because they could not afford to let the ET judge her whichever way. If she had been judged an employee, then should could have claimed much more. If she had been judged not an employee, then clearly that would be another contradiction of CEST. Don't you see how politics work in this country?

Many claimed that my actions would be like pressing the nuclear button. It was more like a damp squib. But if more people had taken note in the early days of what my actions were demonstrating, then we just may not have found ourselves in the current situation. I had as many supporters of my actions as those who were opposed.

You can only fight HMRC in the courts and they will try every trick in the book to stop you when clearly the stakes are very high for them. Clients will also try to settle out of court, as they did with me. But the stakes were too high for me to accept their paltry offer.

If you would like to provide me with a private message with your private email address, I'll send you some more details so that you understand what goes on in the legal environment.

Also, I'm not rocking an unsteady boat. I'm suggesting that more of us should fight our corner when faced with a lying and devious HMRC.

[Lance]

you miss the fundamental point completely. The ET finds that either you were/are self employed, or that you were/are employed. Either judgement prevents HMRC from coming after you. This is why the settled Susan Winchester's claim out of court. HMRC couldn't afford to let it go to the ET.

If I'm missing something then please explain what as I can't see it.


- If you're a genuine B2B contractor you cant have any benefits from being an employee.
- If you're an employee you have rights (or should have) and pay tax by PAYE.
- If you're self-employed you have no (very few rights) and pay tax as self-employed.
- If you're a disguised employee (for tax purposes) and you then take your employer to court to prove it, you are openly admitting, in public, that you have been defrauding HMRX by paying tax as a b2B contractor. You cannot have it both ways.... And if you get switched to inside don't rock the now unsteady boat.

[WTFH]

you miss the fundamental point completely. The ET finds that either you were/are self employed, or that you were/are employed. Either judgement prevents HMRC from coming after you. This is why the settled Susan Winchester's claim out of court. HMRC couldn't afford to let it go to the ET.

You missed the third option.
1. Self Employed
2. Employed
3. Self employed but taxed as if employed because it's considered you're not really a contractor.

[JohntheBike]

you miss my point. HMRC can see the evidence that the contractor uses to fight for a pension.
They then use that evidence in a tax tribunal to fight you for xx years of backdated IR35 tax.


EDIT: for more clarity
JtB gets determined as inside for April 6th.
JtB says 'hang on, if I'm an employee then I've always been one so i want the employer pension contributions, that I wouldn't have opted out from, paid into a pension for me.
JtB goes to court with evidence showing that he was always an employee (Exhibit A)
Client goes to court and says 'you're not an employee, you never were, you're just a worker with no RoS, and with MOO and SDC in place (exhibit B)

HMRC see this (matter of public record) and goes "'ay oop. We've got an easy one here. Let's go **** JtB's life."
HMRC take Exhibits A&B and start an investigation, that may become a case in a tax tribuinal....

you miss the fundamental point completely. The ET finds that either you were/are self employed, or that you were/are employed. Either judgement prevents HMRC from coming after you. This is why the settled Susan Winchester's claim out of court. HMRC couldn't afford to let it go to the ET.

[Lance]

By the time HMRC start up the investigation it will be time barred.

perhaps. I wouldn't fancy the risk.

[eek]

you miss my point. HMRC can see the evidence that the contractor uses to fight for a pension.
They then use that evidence in a tax tribunal to fight you for xx years of backdated IR35 tax.


EDIT: for more clarity
JtB gets determined as inside for April 6th.
JtB says 'hang on, if I'm an employee then I've always been one so i want the employer pension contributions, that I wouldn't have opted out from, paid into a pension for me.
JtB goes to court with evidence showing that he was always an employee (Exhibit A)
Client goes to court and says 'you're not an employee, you never were, you're just a worker with no RoS, and with MOO and SDC in place (exhibit B)

HMRC see this (matter of public record) and goes "'ay oop. We've got an easy one here. Let's go **** JtB's life."
HMRC take Exhibits A&B and start an investigation, that may become a case in a tax tribuinal....

By the time HMRC start up the investigation it will be time barred.

[Lance]

Nope, employment tribunals are not tax tribunals - different criteria are used (which is HMRCs get out that employment tax treatment != employment rights).

you miss my point. HMRC can see the evidence that the contractor uses to fight for a pension.
They then use that evidence in a tax tribunal to fight you for xx years of backdated IR35 tax.


EDIT: for more clarity
JtB gets determined as inside for April 6th.
JtB says 'hang on, if I'm an employee then I've always been one so i want the employer pension contributions, that I wouldn't have opted out from, paid into a pension for me.
JtB goes to court with evidence showing that he was always an employee (Exhibit A)
Client goes to court and says 'you're not an employee, you never were, you're just a worker with no RoS, and with MOO and SDC in place (exhibit B)

HMRC see this (matter of public record) and goes "'ay oop. We've got an easy one here. Let's go **** JtB's life."
HMRC take Exhibits A&B and start an investigation, that may become a case in a tax tribuinal....

[eek]

Scenario 1) You get declared inside come April 6th. You suck it up and have to pay more tax.

Your scenario ) You get declared inside come April 6th. You kick off and sue your 'employer' for xx years of back pension. You may or may not win that case, but the evidence you use to fight it is the evidence HMRC need to get all the back tax of xx years..... You lose a tax tribunal, your house, your wife (and my kids), and might not even have got the pension......

Nope, employment tribunals are not tax tribunals - different criteria are used (which is HMRCs get out that employment tax treatment != employment rights).

[Lance]

It seems the industry is finally waking up to the extended IR35 implications. It may be that the likes of HSBC et al had already recognised this risk and adopted the no contractors position as a result.

Contractors, will the client owe you a backdated pension now you’re their employee?

Scenario 1) You get declared inside come April 6th. You suck it up and have to pay more tax.

Your scenario ) You get declared inside come April 6th. You kick off and sue your 'employer' for xx years of back pension. You may or may not win that case, but the evidence you use to fight it is the evidence HMRC need to get all the back tax of xx years..... You lose a tax tribunal, your house, your wife (and my kids), and might not even have got the pension......

[SimonMac]

It seems the industry is finally waking up to the extended IR35 implications. It may be that the likes of HSBC et al had already recognised this risk and adopted the no contractors position as a result.

Contractors, will the client owe you a backdated pension now you’re their employee?

No, because you're not going to be an employee, you will only be taxed like one

[eek]

This doesn't surprise me 1 bit - the idea of moving anyone inside opens a massive can of worms where the only actual answers will appear x years later after all court cases have fully played out.

[JohntheBike]

It seems the industry is finally waking up to the extended IR35 implications. It may be that the likes of HSBC et al had already recognised this risk and adopted the no contractors position as a result.

Contractors, will the client owe you a backdated pension now you’re their employee?