Food For Thought T&S

[TykeMerc]

In the small consultancy I've recently worked with, their permie consultants have to pay the first £150 of their monthly expenses out of their own pocket. This was agreed with HMRC, so don't think they get away with it scot-free.

That could very easily be an arrangement so that they don't have to fret about personal use of things like fuel cards or some other "benefit". I've worked on and off for years with a 5 man band in production engineering and they get their expenses back in full, they can't see any reason that will change, I had coffee there the other day and we discussed it.

One absurdity is that they're trying to differentiate the one man contractor from a small business that may only hire staff now and then (which a one man consultancy may well do, I certainly have in the past I'm sure a fair few CUK posters have). The logical extension to that is the FLC idea which the delightful IPSE clowns have handed them, a lovely easy way to differentiate, legislate and set rules just for contractors without upsetting the "genuine business" applecart, all the accusations of unfairness go away too.

[fool]

I really don't see why it is OK for a small consultancy with several staff to legitimately claim T&S, but for a one man ltd co consultancy it will no longer be legit. It makes me mad.

This is what really annoys me. While I don't like it, paying more tax doesn't enrage me. What does is HMRCs insistence that our companies are somehow different. I'd argue that they're not different, they're just smaller.

All this will really achieve is making companies harder to run (the entirety of IR35 does this and needs to be put in the bin) and makes it more difficult for us to expand our small business as we have a tulip ton of legalisation to understand rather than just focusing on growing our companies.

Sure, many of us are just planning to be one man companies ( not myself ) but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to incoperate to their advantage when others are able to. The line should be drawn at the obvious point of incorporating not some vague HMRC defined line in the sand.

[gables]

This is what really annoys me. While I don't like it, paying more tax doesn't enrage me. What does is HMRCs insistence that our companies are somehow different. I'd argue that they're not different, they're just smaller.

All this will really achieve is making companies harder to run (the entirety of IR35 does this and needs to be put in the bin) and makes it more difficult for us to expand our small business as we have a tulip ton of legalisation to understand rather than just focusing on growing our companies.

Sure, many of us are just planning to be one man companies ( not myself ) but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to incoperate to their advantage when others are able to. The line should be drawn at the obvious point of incorporating not some vague HMRC defined line in the sand.

And then to make in more insulting, through in the term 'disguised employee'

[MrMarkyMark]

In the small consultancy I've recently worked with, their permie consultants have to pay the first £150 of their monthly expenses out of their own pocket. This was agreed with HMRC, so don't think they get away with it scot-free.

Did the consultancy roll over for HMRC?
I wouldn't be happy with this at all, especially as a permie.