IR35 Changes coming on 6th April

[tmcassett]

robbo99.:

Conor:
Whole reply removed for personal attack.

Can’t understand what exactly?? Think it’s the other way around. Game set and match to me.

Do you really think you look big and clever by calling names when you don’t know me from Adam? As I know you I can confidently disclose to others that I can return your various names of nobber, shyster, knuckle dragging ■■■■■■ with the IQ of a cabbage and dribbling clown and ad my own for you, but mine are based on actually knowing a scruffy, lazy, slob who’s only reason to exist is to brown nose because of various inadequacies.

Wow, quite possibly one of the most immature things I’ve seen on here (and that’s saying something).

I think it’s fair to say he doesn’t have an answer to the points you raise so has to resort to the actions of a 9 year old in the school playground and just start throwing around petty insults.

[grumpy_old_trucker]

tmcassett:

robbo99.:

Conor:
Whole reply removed for personal attack.

Can’t understand what exactly?? Think it’s the other way around. Game set and match to me.

Do you really think you look big and clever by calling names when you don’t know me from Adam? As I know you I can confidently disclose to others that I can return your various names of nobber, shyster, knuckle dragging ■■■■■■ with the IQ of a cabbage and dribbling clown and ad my own for you, but mine are based on actually knowing a scruffy, lazy, slob who’s only reason to exist is to brown nose because of various inadequacies.

Wow, quite possibly one of the most immature things I’ve seen on here (and that’s saying something).

I think it’s fair to say he doesn’t have an answer to the points you raise so has to resort to the actions of a 9 year old in the school playground and just start throwing around petty insults.

He’s certainly a strange one, he resorted to personal insults towards me on another thread.
Suitable case for treatment!
A simple google of Conor Turton And his home town will throw up images of him, there’s no wonder he’s as angry as he is with a boat like that.

[robbo99]

Rjan:

robbo99.:

Conor:
…

As IR35 is NOW, a person’s employment status in the private sector is NOT tax evasion if incorrect.

I don’t think I agree with that analysis.

With “tax avoidance”, no tax is due. With “tax evasion”, the situation is misrepresented to the taxman so that due tax is not paid or demanded.

If the employment status is represented wrongly, and tax is due, then that is quite possibly a case of tax evasion.

I say “possibly” because I’m not aware of the exact legislation off the top of my head which imposes criminal penalties for tax evasion.

But where the employment status is misrepresented intentionally to avoid tax, it’s no different than if an employer refuses to operate a PAYE scheme, declaring without foundation that his workers are all businessmen. That’s criminal tax evasion.

I get were you are coming from, but with the IR35 reforms taking place in the coming days, it is down to the end client to decide a workers IR35 status. If that is incorrect and said worker pays less tax than he/she should then I would expect he/she to be made to pay the correct amount of tax due, with interest charges added for the time the money has been outstanding, (somewhere around 3%) and penalties possibly added but certainly not tax evasion.

As the rules stand as of today, IR35 comes under tax avoidance (scheme), something the government are putting a stop to but not one person will be expected to pay a penny for the years they have operated under IR35 rules, the tax is not being chased retrospectively so once again not tax evasion. If it were tax evasion then every penny would be chased by HMRC possibly with criminal charges.

[supermultiblue]

Lol at the tax dodgers tears in this thread. It’s over lads, cough up

[robbo99]

SuperMultiBlue:
Lol at the tax dodgers tears in this thread. It’s over lads, cough up

Bit late there, hasn’t been worth doing since the generous FRS Vat was reduced to a pittance.

And if a Ltd Co driver wants to ply his trade with what is classed as a “small sized” company then IR35 reforms will not affect him/her.

So much for it been classed as tax evasion as some would have us believe.

[henrys_cat]

I’ve no problem with the LTD co lads as such, after all I was one in another industry. What I have a problem with is the way it limited the available jobs for people who don’t want to go that route or umbrella but wanted to be genuine PAYE. Several agencies around me would not employ anyone on a normal PAYE basis, the extra they were and are paying over what would be PAYE rate doesn’t cover the margin and extra NI that needed to be paid. This then spread to hauliers themselves setting people on LTD when the job was obviously a PAYE one. Its only a matter of time before small employers are brought into this as well

In the other industry I was in, the way the firms were dealing with it was to push you down the umbrella route as they didn’t want you on their books, that was the situation last April not sure whats happening now as I got out before I needed to do anything.

[rjan]

robbo99.:

Rjan:
…

I get were you are coming from, but with the IR35 reforms taking place in the coming days, it is down to the end client to decide a workers IR35 status.

It will be interesting to get to grips with these changes in due course.

But remember the “Status Determination Statement” is only the employer’s view of things, and it establishes whether they have to operate PAYE. It isn’t definitive for the worker.

An example of tax evasion would be if the employer makes a determination of status which the worker knows to be false, and they thus connive together to evade tax. This wouldn’t be likely when working direct for a reputable employer, but is perfectly possible when dealing with umbrella front companies and so on.

If that is incorrect and said worker pays less tax than he/she should then I would expect he/she to be made to pay the correct amount of tax due, with interest charges added for the time the money has been outstanding, (somewhere around 3%) and penalties possibly added but certainly not tax evasion.

The reason you pay a penalty is precisely because it was evasion. If it were not evasion, then either no tax would be due (including in cases of so-called “avoidance”), or possibly it would be considered official error (and a good candidate for a write-off).

As the rules stand as of today, IR35 comes under tax avoidance (scheme), something the government are putting a stop to but not one person will be expected to pay a penny for the years they have operated under IR35 rules, the tax is not being chased retrospectively so once again not tax evasion. If it were tax evasion then every penny would be chased by HMRC possibly with criminal charges.

On the contrary, there are a variety of explanations for why criminal charges may not ensue, including the desire to be fair to people who have made small errors (a person found to be evading tax will rarely admit that he downright intended to dodge tax, he will always claim to be amongst those who have made genuine mistakes), and the administrative burden of pursuing a large number of people in court where the ultimate sentence may be modest (and where the very fact of a conviction may lead to a loss of employment, and thus the means to pay the tax found to be due).

And there are a variety of reasons why past evaders may not be pursued, including the loss of evidence about the circumstances, the difficulty of relying on people’s recollections, the administrative burden of fighting it out with the taxpayer, the possibility of the tax being difficult to recover even if the taxman establishes his rights in principle, and the possibility of imposing costs on the state elsewhere. The latter points are precisely why PAYE exists, because it’s far easier to discipline large corporations into paying the right amount of tax, than a myriad of workers living hand to mouth.

And if nothing else, treating the little man with kid gloves over a fiddle worth £100, allows them to treat the rich with kid gloves over a fiddle worth £1m, making it easier for the rich to shaft the little man overall.

[robbo99]

Rjan:

robbo99.:

Rjan:
…

I get were you are coming from, but with the IR35 reforms taking place in the coming days, it is down to the end client to decide a workers IR35 status.

It will be interesting to get to grips with these changes in due course.

But remember the “Status Determination Statement” is only the employer’s view of things, and it establishes whether they have to operate PAYE. It isn’t definitive for the worker.

An example of tax evasion would be if the employer makes a determination of status which the worker knows to be false, and they thus connive together to evade tax. This wouldn’t be likely when working direct for a reputable employer, but is perfectly possible when dealing with umbrella front companies and so on.

If that is incorrect and said worker pays less tax than he/she should then I would expect he/she to be made to pay the correct amount of tax due, with interest charges added for the time the money has been outstanding, (somewhere around 3%) and penalties possibly added but certainly not tax evasion.

The reason you pay a penalty is precisely because it was evasion. If it were not evasion, then either no tax would be due (including in cases of so-called “avoidance”), or possibly it would be considered official error (and a good candidate for a write-off).

As the rules stand as of today, IR35 comes under tax avoidance (scheme), something the government are putting a stop to but not one person will be expected to pay a penny for the years they have operated under IR35 rules, the tax is not being chased retrospectively so once again not tax evasion. If it were tax evasion then every penny would be chased by HMRC possibly with criminal charges.

On the contrary, there are a variety of explanations for why criminal charges may not ensue, including the desire to be fair to people who have made small errors (a person found to be evading tax will rarely admit that he downright intended to dodge tax, he will always claim to be amongst those who have made genuine mistakes), and the administrative burden of pursuing a large number of people in court where the ultimate sentence may be modest (and where the very fact of a conviction may lead to a loss of employment, and thus the means to pay the tax found to be due).

And there are a variety of reasons why past evaders may not be pursued, including the loss of evidence about the circumstances, the difficulty of relying on people’s recollections, the administrative burden of fighting it out with the taxpayer, the possibility of the tax being difficult to recover even if the taxman establishes his rights in principle, and the possibility of imposing costs on the state elsewhere. The latter points are precisely why PAYE exists, because it’s far easier to discipline large corporations into paying the right amount of tax, than a myriad of workers living hand to mouth.

And if nothing else, treating the little man with kid gloves over a fiddle worth £100, allows them to treat the rich with kid gloves over a fiddle worth £1m, making it easier for the rich to shaft the little man overall.

And of course most of your post is based on speculation, not facts, an example I’ve come across is people hit by the MSC legislation, (tax avoidance scheme) were people were hit with interest charges and hefty penalties for non compliance, so that disproves your theory that only tax evasion incurs penalties. Tax law is notoriously complex, how can Lorainne Kelly win her case against HMRC yet another presenter, Christa Ackroyd lose hers? Both regarding IR35, both TV presenters doing similar jobs?

[rjan]

robbo99.:

Rjan:
…

And of course most of your post is based on speculation, not facts, an example I’ve come across is people hit by the MSC legislation, (tax avoidance scheme) were people were hit with interest charges and hefty penalties for non compliance, so that disproves your theory that only tax evasion incurs penalties.

On the contrary, my “theory” is that such “non-compliance” essentially is tax evasion.

I also didn’t say that only tax evasion incurs penalties. It’s perfectly possible to break the law in other ways, although when “interest” is also involved then there must have been a determination that tax was being evaded.

Tax law is notoriously complex, how can Lorainne Kelly win her case against HMRC yet another presenter, Christa Ackroyd lose hers? Both regarding IR35, both TV presenters doing similar jobs?

Because they’re taking things right to the wire, and from what I recall, a key pillar of Lorraine Kelly’s argument was that she was big enough in her own right to be considered independent, so it’s possible the judges decided that Ackroyd wasn’t.

The tasks which the job involves are not really the question. The question is what relationship exists between the parties, and there is rarely if ever any basis for thinking the wagon driver to be a businessman in business, or like Lorraine Kelly, to be “big in his own right”. If nothing else, the remuneration fails to reflect such status.

[robbo99]

Rjan:

robbo99.:

Rjan:
…

And of course most of your post is based on speculation, not facts, an example I’ve come across is people hit by the MSC legislation, (tax avoidance scheme) were people were hit with interest charges and hefty penalties for non compliance, so that disproves your theory that only tax evasion incurs penalties.

On the contrary, my “theory” is that such “non-compliance” essentially is tax evasion.

I also didn’t say that only tax evasion incurs penalties. It’s perfectly possible to break the law in other ways, although when “interest” is also involved then there must have been a determination that tax was being evaded.

Tax law is notoriously complex, how can Lorainne Kelly win her case against HMRC yet another presenter, Christa Ackroyd lose hers? Both regarding IR35, both TV presenters doing similar jobs?

Because they’re taking things right to the wire, and from what I recall, a key pillar of Lorraine Kelly’s argument was that she was big enough in her own right to be considered independent, so it’s possible the judges decided that Ackroyd wasn’t.

The tasks which the job involves are not really the question. The question is what relationship exists between the parties, and there is rarely if ever any basis for thinking the wagon driver to be a businessman in business, or like Lorraine Kelly, to be “big in his own right”. If nothing else, the remuneration fails to reflect such status.

Like I said you are not backing your posts up with facts only your own speculation. Re: interest added means tax evasion has taken place is completey wrong. As I have posted, MSC legislation a tax avoidance scheme landed participants with interest charges, going back upto 5 years on the outstanding monies owing to HMRC. No tax evasion was ever levelled at anyone.

Tax Avoidance is not illegal, aggressive tax avoidance is also not illegal but government maintain it flies in the face of what tax laws were intended to be. Your take on what determines tax evasion is completely wrong. Once again tax avoidance legal, tax evasion illegal.

Of course companies conspiring with others to pay next to no tax is illegal, ie tax evasion, conspiring being the important word. As of now IR35 rules affecting workers employment status comes under tax avoidance rules and is NOT tax evasion…simple as that.

What happens after April 6 is anybody’s guess, I don’t own a crystal ball.

The point I am making about the presenters is they were both doing similar jobs, ie presenting TV shows, both were accused of tax avoidance through IR35 rules, one a multi millionaire and one not a multi millionaire, irrespective of how big a star Kelly is makes a mockery of the IR35 legislation.

If you want to get it in black and white that IR35 legislation is tax avoidance, then Google it, it is not tax evasion.

[rjan]

robbo99.:

Rjan:
…

Like I said you are not backing your posts up with facts only your own speculation. Re: interest added means tax evasion has taken place is completey wrong. As I have posted, MSC legislation a tax avoidance scheme landed participants with interest charges, going back upto 5 years on the outstanding monies owing to HMRC. No tax evasion was ever levelled at anyone.

What exactly do you want me to back up? That a failed “tax avoidance scheme” is in fact tax evasion?

As this article says, the taxman scarcely acknowledges the difference: jolliffecork.co.uk/blog-pos … difference

The key difference is that avoidance is lawful and evasion is not. If HMRC challenges your treatment of your tax affairs, and you are forced to revise it and pay more tax, then that is an instance of evasion because the original treatment was not lawful. That’s also why you may have to pay a penalty.

Tax Avoidance is not illegal, aggressive tax avoidance is also not illegal but government maintain it flies in the face of what tax laws were intended to be. Your take on what determines tax evasion is completely wrong. Once again tax avoidance legal, tax evasion illegal.

Yes, agreed absolutely. But when the taxman reverses your “avoidance” scheme and forces you to pay a penalty, that is because your scheme was contrary to the law governing tax matters. And being illegal, we agree that it is tax evasion.

Of course companies conspiring with others to pay next to no tax is illegal, ie tax evasion, conspiring being the important word. As of now IR35 rules affecting workers employment status comes under tax avoidance rules and is NOT tax evasion…simple as that.

An incorrect determination of status, and a failure to operate PAYE in accordance with the law, has always been tax evasion.

That in some instances the penalties are not severe, or even that the taxman may just allow you to pay the right amount of tax, doesn’t establish that a category of wrongdoing exists which is not tax evasion. It is simply how the taxman chooses to manage the problem of tax evasion, as well as being relatively fair to those who make small errors.

What happens after April 6 is anybody’s guess, I don’t own a crystal ball.

The point I am making about the presenters is they were both doing similar jobs, ie presenting TV shows, both were accused of tax avoidance through IR35 rules, one a multi millionaire and one not a multi millionaire, irrespective of how big a star Kelly is makes a mockery of the IR35 legislation.

Not really, because it has nothing to do with the job you do, the question is what relationship the parties have entered into. The two standard cases are that of master and servant, or businessman and client. If memory serves, Kelly contended that she was the businesswoman in the relationship, and that the studio was either her supplier (from whom she was renting studio or screen time) or her client (to whom she was supplying a broadcast production).

Traditionally there was also a third category of “officer” and similar, consisting of those whose who were not in business independently (and might in fact be dedicated to a single role in an organisation, and be obviously working for it in exchange for a salary or other remuneration), but who enjoyed total autonomy over their participation, and over whom the organisation (or its other members) had no authority. Partners in general partnerships, company directors and company secretaries, and senior professionals on an equal class footing to the owners.

I think salaried offices have come under PAYE from the start, so it wouldn’t have helped Kelly to argue that angle, but again she is such a luminary of daytime broadcasting that it is quite credible to think that she meets studio executives on an equal (or even greater) footing, and her own remuneration reflects that. The arrangement, according to the court in that case, is not that of Kelly being a servant to the studio as master.

Whereas the ordinary driver never meets even the smallest haulage owner on equal terms (and again remuneration reflects that).

[robbo99]

Rjan:

robbo99.:

Rjan:
…

Like I said you are not backing your posts up with facts only your own speculation. Re: interest added means tax evasion has taken place is completey wrong. As I have posted, MSC legislation a tax avoidance scheme landed participants with interest charges, going back upto 5 years on the outstanding monies owing to HMRC. No tax evasion was ever levelled at anyone.

What exactly do you want me to back up? That a failed “tax avoidance scheme” is in fact tax evasion?

As this article says, the taxman scarcely acknowledges the difference: jolliffecork.co.uk/blog-pos … difference

The key difference is that avoidance is lawful and evasion is not. If HMRC challenges your treatment of your tax affairs, and you are forced to revise it and pay more tax, then that is an instance of evasion because the original treatment was not lawful. That’s also why you may have to pay a penalty.

Tax Avoidance is not illegal, aggressive tax avoidance is also not illegal but government maintain it flies in the face of what tax laws were intended to be. Your take on what determines tax evasion is completely wrong. Once again tax avoidance legal, tax evasion illegal.

Yes, agreed absolutely. But when the taxman reverses your “avoidance” scheme and forces you to pay a penalty, that is because your scheme was contrary to the law governing tax matters. And being illegal, we agree that it is tax evasion.

Of course companies conspiring with others to pay next to no tax is illegal, ie tax evasion, conspiring being the important word. As of now IR35 rules affecting workers employment status comes under tax avoidance rules and is NOT tax evasion…simple as that.

An incorrect determination of status, and a failure to operate PAYE in accordance with the law, has always been tax evasion.

That in some instances the penalties are not severe, or even that the taxman may just allow you to pay the right amount of tax, doesn’t establish that a category of wrongdoing exists which is not tax evasion. It is simply how the taxman chooses to manage the problem of tax evasion, as well as being relatively fair to those who make small errors.

What happens after April 6 is anybody’s guess, I don’t own a crystal ball.

The point I am making about the presenters is they were both doing similar jobs, ie presenting TV shows, both were accused of tax avoidance through IR35 rules, one a multi millionaire and one not a multi millionaire, irrespective of how big a star Kelly is makes a mockery of the IR35 legislation.

Not really, because it has nothing to do with the job you do, the question is what relationship the parties have entered into. The two standard cases are that of master and servant, or businessman and client. If memory serves, Kelly contended that she was the businesswoman in the relationship, and that the studio was either her supplier (from whom she was renting studio or screen time) or her client (to whom she was supplying a broadcast production).

Traditionally there was also a third category of “officer” and similar, consisting of those whose who were not in business independently (and might in fact be dedicated to a single role in an organisation, and be obviously working for it in exchange for a salary or other remuneration), but who enjoyed total autonomy over their participation, and over whom the organisation (or its other members) had no authority. Partners in general partnerships, company directors and company secretaries, and senior professionals on an equal class footing to the owners.

I think salaried offices have come under PAYE from the start, so it wouldn’t have helped Kelly to argue that angle, but again she is such a luminary of daytime broadcasting that it is quite credible to think that she meets studio executives on an equal (or even greater) footing, and her own remuneration reflects that. The arrangement, according to the court in that case, is not that of Kelly being a servant to the studio as master.

Whereas the ordinary driver never meets even the smallest haulage owner on equal terms (and again remuneration reflects that).

Does it really suprise you that HMRC don’t always know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Legislation is set down by Parliament and the Muppets at HMRC interpret to suit.
Ultimately it is for the courts to make decisions all the way up to the Supreme Court. Breaches of IR35…tax avoidance.

As I have said the fact that interest and penalties are added to a tax demand does NOT make it tax evasion, absolutely not. A “mistake” on a return can result in a penalty charge, does that mean the person who submitted the return is guilty of tax evasion? Absolutely not. Interest can and is applied to late payments, does that mean the person is guilty of tax evasion? Absolutely not.

Falling foul on tax avoidance schemes does NOT equate to tax evasion. As mentioned check out MSC legislation, a classic avoidance scheme, not evasion.

Regarding the original post, it is referring to how IR35 reforms in the private sector will affect us all, my take on that is an end to the masses operating as ltd cos with a few working via “small firms” and being able to carry on, thus making a mockery of IR35 reforms, what’s good for one should be good for another.

I often wonder with Kelly that money talks and as she has plenty she no doubt hired the best lawyers. HMRC don’t like expensive court cases or the light shone on them when there’s a chance they will lose… I wonder whether they will pursue the Kelly decision, I guess not. No they would rather hound the working man for a few quid in dispute.

[carlston49]

205:
Who’s taking a 25% reduction in their pay and who’s going to quit?

At my local RDC, LTD drivers who have gone PAYE have had a big pay increase due to pay parity and paid holidays.

LTD drivers who didn’t transfer to PAYE have been let go.

[robbo99]

carlston49:

205:
Who’s taking a 25% reduction in their pay and who’s going to quit?

At my local RDC, LTD drivers who have gone PAYE have had a big pay increase due to pay parity and paid holidays.

LTD drivers who didn’t transfer to PAYE have been let go.

Great for the working man but I guess the end client takes the hit for the knock on effect of IR35 reforms, ie, a massive increase in their wage bills. Great! But I guess government fat cats will be mulling over how they can waste their expected windfall.

[dcpcfml]

robbo99.:

carlston49:

205:
Who’s taking a 25% reduction in their pay and who’s going to quit?

At my local RDC, LTD drivers who have gone PAYE have had a big pay increase due to pay parity and paid holidays.

LTD drivers who didn’t transfer to PAYE have been let go.

Great for the working man but I guess the end client takes the hit for the knock on effect of IR35 reforms, ie, a massive increase in their wage bills. Great! But I guess government fat cats will be mulling over how they can waste their expected windfall.

Veering slightly off topic, but I don’t get what the issue is with the requirement to own and operate a truck to be deemed as “properly” self-employed as a driver. There must be other industries where you offer yourself a labour-only service for various clients to cover holidays/sickness on an adhoc as-and-when required basis. Why do you need to own a truck or be employed on payroll by them? It makes no sense to me. If I possess the skills and experience and only want to work on an infrequent basis because I’m retired, for example, but get bored after a while and like to do an odd day/week now and again, why can I not do them? If ABC Haulage at the end of my street says to me “Kris, Steve is on holiday tomorrow, can you run a load down to Northampton for me?” and I’ve nothing else on, why can’t I do that for a mutually agreeable sum, issue him with an invoice afterwards, he transfer the money to my account and I file my SA at the year end and pay whatever tax and NI are due? That seems like a perfect example of being self-employed to me so I don’t understand how HMRC deem it to be disguised employment. I don’t care for holiday pay. I can take as many weeks or months off as I want whenever I want, because I am retired. It makes absolutely no sense for them to stipulate that you own and operate a truck, other than they are HMRC and can make up whatever rules they want regardless of how retarded they are.

[robbo99]

DCPCFML:

robbo99.:

carlston49:

205:
Who’s taking a 25% reduction in their pay and who’s going to quit?

At my local RDC, LTD drivers who have gone PAYE have had a big pay increase due to pay parity and paid holidays.

LTD drivers who didn’t transfer to PAYE have been let go.

Great for the working man but I guess the end client takes the hit for the knock on effect of IR35 reforms, ie, a massive increase in their wage bills. Great! But I guess government fat cats will be mulling over how they can waste their expected windfall.

Veering slightly off topic, but I don’t get what the issue is with the requirement to own and operate a truck to be deemed as “properly” self-employed as a driver. There must be other industries where you offer yourself a labour-only service for various clients to cover holidays/sickness on an adhoc as-and-when required basis. Why do you need to own a truck or be employed on payroll by them? It makes no sense to me. If I possess the skills and experience and only want to work on an infrequent basis because I’m retired, for example, but get bored after a while and like to do an odd day/week now and again, why can I not do them? If ABC Haulage at the end of my street says to me “Kris, Steve is on holiday tomorrow, can you run a load down to Northampton for me?” and I’ve nothing else on, why can’t I do that for a mutually agreeable sum, issue him with an invoice afterwards, he transfer the money to my account and I file my SA at the year end and pay whatever tax and NI are due? That seems like a perfect example of being self-employed to me so I don’t understand how HMRC deem it to be disguised employment. I don’t care for holiday pay. I can take as many weeks or months off as I want whenever I want, because I am retired. It makes absolutely no sense for them to stipulate that you own and operate a truck, other than they are HMRC and can make up whatever rules they want regardless of how retarded they are.

And there is a very valid post, anyone can be a self employed or Director of a Ltd Co whatever they want to be, so why a labour only as and when required driver is frowned upon beats me.

Owning a truck to be properly self employed hasn’t exactly been on HMRCs hit list for the last 20 or so years. HMRC work to their own agenda, don’t know whether you are aware of a site called “HMRC is 5h1te” but it certainly opens my eyes along with the very public ■■■■ ups that they are renowned for.

[the_nodding_donkey]

robbo99.:

Conor:
Whole reply removed for personal attack.

Can’t understand what exactly?? Think it’s the other way around. Game set and match to me.

Do you really think you look big and clever by calling names when you don’t know me from Adam? As I know you I can confidently disclose to others that I can return your various names of nobber, shyster, knuckle dragging ■■■■■■ with the IQ of a cabbage and dribbling clown and ad my own for you, but mine are based on actually knowing a scruffy, lazy, slob who’s only reason to exist is to brown nose because of various inadequacies.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this post?

(Not to mention a bit of double standards from the mods…)

[dcpcfml]

robbo99.:
And there is a very valid post, anyone can be a self employed or Director of a Ltd Co whatever they want to be, so why a labour only as and when required driver is frowned upon beats me.

Owning a truck to be properly self employed hasn’t exactly been on HMRCs hit list for the last 20 or so years. HMRC work to their own agenda, don’t know whether you are aware of a site called “HMRC is 5h1te” but it certainly opens my eyes along with the very public ■■■■ ups that they are renowned for.

Can you think of any other industries that supply labour only that haven’t been caught up in the IR35 net?

[robbo99]

DCPCFML:

robbo99.:
And there is a very valid post, anyone can be a self employed or Director of a Ltd Co whatever they want to be, so why a labour only as and when required driver is frowned upon beats me.

Owning a truck to be properly self employed hasn’t exactly been on HMRCs hit list for the last 20 or so years. HMRC work to their own agenda, don’t know whether you are aware of a site called “HMRC is 5h1te” but it certainly opens my eyes along with the very public ■■■■ ups that they are renowned for.

Can you think of any other industries that supply labour only that haven’t been caught up in the IR35 net?

Not really up on different industries but from now on big changes will affect the private sector as a whole. If it’s deemed a workers employment status should be that of employee then it’s PAYE.

[dcpcfml]

robbo99.:

DCPCFML:

robbo99.:
And there is a very valid post, anyone can be a self employed or Director of a Ltd Co whatever they want to be, so why a labour only as and when required driver is frowned upon beats me.

Owning a truck to be properly self employed hasn’t exactly been on HMRCs hit list for the last 20 or so years. HMRC work to their own agenda, don’t know whether you are aware of a site called “HMRC is 5h1te” but it certainly opens my eyes along with the very public ■■■■ ups that they are renowned for.

Can you think of any other industries that supply labour only that haven’t been caught up in the IR35 net?

Not really up on different industries but from now on big changes will affect the private sector as a whole. If it’s deemed a workers employment status should be that of employee then it’s PAYE.

But that’s my point. How can a retired person just working an odd day here and there to suit themselves be deemed a PAYE employee of the company in terms of rights, according to HMRC? It makes no sense. HMRC is basically denying me the right to choose how I work and who I work for, funneling me to a national employment agency and umbrella payment front, both of which take a cut of the money and add layers of hassle and bureaucracy into the mix for no benefit to anyone other than themselves.

It seems that having the word “HGV driver” as your trade when registered for SA/LTD basically waves a big red flag at HMRC to keep tabs on how you’re working. If I changed that to, eg. “Commercial vehicle techician” then from what I can see, on paper I could continue being self-employed and it’s unlikely that HMRC would know any different, nor even care, so long as the right amount of tax and NI were paid and the figures looked ok. Who is going to know or care that after my “vehicle technician-ing” I was asked to move a trailer 100 miles away and bring a different one back? The chances of them wanting to check my car boot or van was full of my own tools is very unlikely in my opinion and investigations are generally only triggered if there’s something on your return which causes them to raise an eyebrow. Other than being slightly economical with the truth about what your actual trade is I don’t see what the issue would be. HMRC would still get their dues, client would get a reliable, known quantity for a rate he’d be happy with vs. the much higher rate than an agency would charge, and I get the rate I’m happy working for without losing 25% of it in fees and holiday pay that I don’t need nor want.