| HMRC 09:14 - Dec 3 with 3949 views | bluey_the_blue |
Another week, yet more losses for HMRC in IR35 tribunals.
Again, ruling by judges was that contracts lacked Mutuality of Obligation - meaning contractors not bound to accept any work offered nor client obliged to offer work outside contract.
HMRC's own tool for determining IR35 status *assumes* MOO is present in every contract; HMRC currently going through a flurry of cases, wasting taxpayers money in the process.
When will they be reined in? Changes for private sector contracts have to be blocked, changes in public sector rolled back. |  | | |  |
| HMRC on 19:25 - Dec 3 with 963 views | Catullus |
| HMRC on 17:21 - Dec 3 by londonlisa2001 |
I don’t even remotely fail to grasp the ins and outs of IR35 Bluey. |
I think a part of the problem is, neither do the HMRC. | |
| |
| HMRC on 19:26 - Dec 3 with 957 views | bluey_the_blue |
| HMRC on 19:25 - Dec 3 by Catullus |
I think a part of the problem is, neither do the HMRC. |
Double negative, meaning Lisa does grasp it.
HMRC certainly don't. | | | |
| HMRC on 19:54 - Dec 3 with 939 views | ItchySphincter |
| HMRC on 19:22 - Dec 3 by bluey_the_blue |
Which I'm not in itself disagreeing with, however the evidence of HMRC activities is that they act as a law unto themselves.
Any tax regulations passed aren't black and white, aren't concrete until tested in a court of law.
It's accountants interpretations and HMRC's interpretation. The latter have to be found routinely wrong in IR35 tribunal cases and indeed ignoring definitions from their own tools. |
Nothing with the revenue is black and white, and IR35 is no exception. I’m all for contributing to the pot but I don’t want to overpay either.
There is reason I operate a limited company and it isn’t tax avoidance. Some years ago HMRC made it very difficult to do the what I do as a sole trader and insisted on an exception by producing an LP10 letter. To obtain LP10 status you basically had to prove that you were not a tax dodging, disguised employee, by producing a number of years accounts demonstrating that that you had several different clients. The problem with that is that the client wouldn’t engage you without the LP10 and the revenue wouldn’t grant it without the client base, catch 22, so limited was the answer.
My liabilities as a limited company, an employee of the company and as an employer are not cheap so not everyone is doing it to avoid paying tax. |  |
| |
| HMRC on 20:04 - Dec 3 with 930 views | Catullus |
| HMRC on 19:26 - Dec 3 by bluey_the_blue |
Double negative, meaning Lisa does grasp it.
HMRC certainly don't. |
My mistake but you knew what I meant. The tax system as a whole is a mess. HMRC regularly make massive mistakes. | |
| |
| HMRC on 20:11 - Dec 3 with 923 views | bluey_the_blue |
| HMRC on 20:04 - Dec 3 by Catullus |
My mistake but you knew what I meant. The tax system as a whole is a mess. HMRC regularly make massive mistakes. |
Agreed - I've always said it's way too complicated, needs mass simplification.
I disagree HMRC make mistakes. They've learnt absolutely nothing from each and every IR35 tribunal verdict as they keep making the same "mistakes".
For every contractor that fights, HMRC rely upon several meekly paying up to give money not liable. | | | |
| HMRC on 20:58 - Dec 3 with 904 views | PozuelosSideys |
Government shot themselves in the foot with this one. I dont see who stands to gain much from the rule changes to IR35. Ive got a LTD company to do certain contracts in the past, but companies now just dont want to go down that route. Businesses are scared of the potential implications, and many are just flat out offshoring a number of jobs such as IT (not something i do) or best case, fixed term or perm jobs. The tax take is considerably less surely if these jobs are being offshored?
Most LTD company contractors arent super high earners like bankers or traders. They still earn good money.. 400-500 a day, but HMRC dont have the balls to go after the bigger boys cos theyll just get bogged down in court like we are seeing. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| HMRC on 21:07 - Dec 3 with 885 views | BrynCartwright |
What a taxing thread! |  |
| |
| HMRC on 21:11 - Dec 3 with 879 views | exiledclaseboy |
Give it an hour or so and it’ll be Corbyn’s fault. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| HMRC on 21:26 - Dec 3 with 869 views | bluey_the_blue |
| HMRC on 21:11 - Dec 3 by exiledclaseboy |
Give it an hour or so and it’ll be Corbyn’s fault. |
Nah, it's the fault of HMRC playing hard and fast with any semblance of accuracy or fairness. | | | |
| HMRC on 21:53 - Dec 3 with 857 views | PentyrchJack |
Bluey's analysis is spot on with IR35 as Inland Revenue's own Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) calculator does not assess properly the question about mutuality of obligation (MOO) which is central to IR35. This explains why Inland Revenue has lost some recent cases but, on the other hand, it has also won other cases too.
Setting that aside, I'm my personal experience I have seen IR35 being used to:
1. Avoid personal tax
2. Drive up day rates so people working for their own limited company earn much more than if they were employed (taking into account loss of paid holidays, pension etc)
3. Bring other taxable benefits such as reclaiming VAT on vehicles, property and expenses which a normal emplyeee would not enjoy.
In other cases I have seen IR35 used properly and many many people have no choice but to contract with companies as there is no alternative. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
