Seen this advert on indeed. Where does this stand with IR35 etc?
Replying to a job advert on a job board and then going to work for a company and driving their trucks under their direction, are Moran going to give hints and tips in tax avoidance to the prospective employee as part of the training?
Perhaps they’re being shy and this is the operators way of being invited to meet the TC but with no coffee or biccies
Jimmy McNulty:
Where does this stand
Probably in the middle of five-haitch one-tea creek, with no paddle.
Can still be Ltd but it would be within IR35 so Morans would have to deduct tax and NI at source just the same as someone on PAYE.
Since when has on-site parking been a benefit?
GORDON 50:
Since when has on-site parking been a benefit?
Ask NHS staff working at hospitals, they now have to pay.
I’m obviously not familiar with your tax laws, but could the scheme be legitimised by leasing the truck to the driver, for the duration of the shift, at a peppercorn rate?
Star down under.:
I’m obviously not familiar with your tax laws, but could the scheme be legitimised by leasing the truck to the driver, for the duration of the shift, at a peppercorn rate?
HMRC* arent rated highly on their sense of humour. Any scheme which is designed to avoid tax (including NI) or camouflage employment will raise no smiles at all. "Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law" Any act created to gain a tax advantage, and nowt else, is a fiddle and will be seen as such. They dont need to list every single little wrinkle that anyone invents, before they look at a scheme. If they suspect it is bent, they can investigate, and the penalties can be fierce.
There are very few legit self employed drivers or Ltd Co drivers. Not none, but very few.
*I`m sure the individuals are fine, but as an organisation? No.
Star down under.:
I’m obviously not familiar with your tax laws, but could the scheme be legitimised by leasing the truck to the driver, for the duration of the shift, at a peppercorn rate?
No, there’s a fairly detailed explanation in this official document in the section headed “Employees”. Basically, unless you’re an owner driver (and therefore have your own O-licence) being self-employed won’t fly with either HMRC or the TC. And yet I still fairly regularly meet people who wrongly believe they’re self-employed.
gov.uk/government/publicati … 20business.
I’m just wondering why every time someone on here mentions Ltd Co driver the topic changes to self employed owner driver. A director of a Ltd Company is employed by the company and is therefore an employee of that company and is NOT self employed. These two arrangements are completely different.
Franglais:
Star down under.:
I’m obviously not familiar with your tax laws, but could the scheme be legitimised by leasing the truck to the driver, for the duration of the shift, at a peppercorn rate?HMRC* aren
t rated highly on their sense of humour. Any scheme which is designed to avoid tax (including NI) or camouflage employment will raise no smiles at all. "Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law" Any act created to gain a tax advantage, and nowt else, is a fiddle and will be seen as such. They dont need to list every single little wrinkle that anyone invents, before they look at a scheme. If they suspect it is bent, they can investigate, and the penalties can be fierce.
There are very few legit self employed drivers or Ltd Co drivers. Not none, but very few.*I`m sure the individuals are fine, but as an organisation? No.
Ah that old chestnut, operating within the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, so a massive grey area not covered by law but differing interpretations.
Just wondering if anyone can help with some more massive links to make this post completely unreadable.? TIA
robbo99.:
Franglais:
Star down under.:
I’m obviously not familiar with your tax laws, but could the scheme be legitimised by leasing the truck to the driver, for the duration of the shift, at a peppercorn rate?HMRC* aren
t rated highly on their sense of humour. Any scheme which is designed to avoid tax (including NI) or camouflage employment will raise no smiles at all. "Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law" Any act created to gain a tax advantage, and nowt else, is a fiddle and will be seen as such. They dont need to list every single little wrinkle that anyone invents, before they look at a scheme. If they suspect it is bent, they can investigate, and the penalties can be fierce.
There are very few legit self employed drivers or Ltd Co drivers. Not none, but very few.*I`m sure the individuals are fine, but as an organisation? No.
Ah that old chestnut, operating within the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, so a massive grey area not covered by law but differing interpretations.
You like it?
You hate it?
Don`t matter at all.
“Old chestnut” or not, what is in between the quotes is from the .gov site.
It is up to anyone whether or not they wish to try out any scheme they wish.
I reckon it`s better that they are aware of all the angles so they can make an informed decision.
Franglais:
robbo99.:
Franglais:
Star down under.:
I’m obviously not familiar with your tax laws, but could the scheme be legitimised by leasing the truck to the driver, for the duration of the shift, at a peppercorn rate?HMRC* aren
t rated highly on their sense of humour. Any scheme which is designed to avoid tax (including NI) or camouflage employment will raise no smiles at all. "Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law" Any act created to gain a tax advantage, and nowt else, is a fiddle and will be seen as such. They dont need to list every single little wrinkle that anyone invents, before they look at a scheme. If they suspect it is bent, they can investigate, and the penalties can be fierce.
There are very few legit self employed drivers or Ltd Co drivers. Not none, but very few.*I`m sure the individuals are fine, but as an organisation? No.
Ah that old chestnut, operating within the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, so a massive grey area not covered by law but differing interpretations.
You like it?
You hate it?
Don`t matter at all.“Old chestnut” or not, what is in between the quotes is from the .gov site.
It is up to anyone whether or not they wish to try out any scheme they wish.I reckon it`s better that they are aware of all the angles so they can make an informed decision.
So government may as well have the law and the spirit of the law on everything then non of us will know our arses from our elbows?
robbo99.:
So government may as well have the law and the spirit of the law on everything then non of us will know our arses from our elbows?
As I said, like it or lump it…them`s the rules.
If anyone chooses to try Ltd or whatever, that is fine with me.
But they should inform themselves of all aspects of choices they make, shouldn`t they?
Franglais:
robbo99.:
So government may as well have the law and the spirit of the law on everything then non of us will know our arses from our elbows?As I said, like it or lump it…them`s the rules.
If anyone chooses to try Ltd or whatever, that is fine with me.
But they should inform themselves of all aspects of choices they make, shouldn`t they?
But there’s my point, rules are rules they should be clear and concise (the law), the spirit of the law is anything but clear and concise and open to differing interpretations, one tax tribunal makes one ruling another tax tribunal makes a different ruling…that’s grey areas for ya!
Conor:
GORDON 50:
Since when has on-site parking been a benefit?Ask NHS staff working at hospitals, they now have to pay.
I understand that, even though I strongly disagree with it. But since when has free parking been a benefit re HGV driving jobs?
robbo99.:
I’m just wondering why every time someone on here mentions Ltd Co driver the topic changes to self employed owner driver. A director of a Ltd Company is employed by the company and is therefore an employee of that company and is NOT self employed. These two arrangements are completely different.
Not quite the same context of the question. The problem is when the driver as a limited company or a as a sole trader who does not own their own vehicle, but are simply driving for another operator.
Acorn:
robbo99.:
I’m just wondering why every time someone on here mentions Ltd Co driver the topic changes to self employed owner driver. A director of a Ltd Company is employed by the company and is therefore an employee of that company and is NOT self employed. These two arrangements are completely different.Not quite the same context of the question. The problem is when the driver as a limited company or a as a sole trader who does not own their own vehicle, but are simply driving for another operator.
So I will rephrase that, how come when someone mentions the Ltd Co driver, in this case the original poster, does it always lead to questions over self employed status? The 2 arrangements are totally different. Furthermore a self employed owner driver, (sole trader) IS self employed and is a completely different arrangement to a Ltd Co driver
who is NOT self employed. Regarding the original post, Conor answered the question perfectly in this instance regarding deductions of tax and ni.
You can have your own company, but still be an employed driver.
Even if you are legitimately a Ltd Co in one field of employment, you may still fall under IR35 in a HGV driving role.
If you are supplied with a truck, work, etc, then you are probably an employee.
It is possible to be a Driver CPC Provider. Own offices, finding own work etc. Ltd applies no problem, it is your own business.
But, if asked to drive someone elses truck for a job, paid by the day, given a fuel card etc, then surely you are probably an employee in that role? You are an employee in someone elses business it seems to me.
