• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Tax tribunal finds contractor wasn't employee

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tax tribunal finds contractor wasn't employee

    This is more humiliation for HMRC.

    Tax tribunal finds contractor wasn't employee ? The Register

    If your company is the best place to work in, for a mere £500 p/d, you can advertise here.

    #2
    "The right... to cancel [the work] without notice is characteristic of a contract for services but quite foreign to the world of employment, as is the provision for agreeing compensation in such an event,"
    Coffee's for closers

    Comment


      #3
      So the government is still trying to hammer small businesses while the huge corporations are free to dodge massive amounts of tax as usual.

      Nothing changes. About time the government left entrepeneurs and small businesses alone to generate some wealth, employment prospects and intellectual property, no?

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
        So the government is still trying to hammer small businesses while the huge corporations are free to dodge massive amounts of tax as usual.

        Nothing changes. About time the government left entrepeneurs and small businesses alone to generate some wealth, employment prospects and intellectual property, no?
        Yes, no.

        Comment


          #5
          Reading that article he sounded like a disguised employee I guess it shows how far you've got to go to truly fall into that category, which is nice.
          Originally posted by MaryPoppins
          I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
          Originally posted by vetran
          Urine is quite nourishing

          Comment


            #6
            Brill!!! Eh Gibbon?

            Having to be on site is always a nonsense pointer when there are issues of security, confidentiality and safety.
            Last edited by xoggoth; 15 February 2011, 12:01.
            bloggoth

            If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
            John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

            Comment


              #7
              This is fabulous

              I think MOO should be the only determining factor for IR35. In their own words:

              IR35 (the intermediaries legislation) is legislation introduced in 2000 to counter avoidance of tax on employment income where workers receive payments from a client via an intermediary (usually a personal service company) and the relationship between the worker and the clientwould otherwise be one of employment.
              Small Business Tax Review - HM Treasury

              What exactly do they mean by 'would otherwise'? Is it like if the worker had signed a contract of employment with all the MOO etc etc that goes with it?

              Yeah that's a different situation.
              Last edited by Jog On; 15 February 2011, 13:20.
              "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
                Brill!!! Eh Gibbon?

                Having to be on site is always a nonsense pointer when there are issues of security, confidentiality and safety.
                Indeed.
                But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

                Comment


                  #9
                  Found this difficult to understand why the guy won this case. Everything pointed to him being a disguised employee. Can anyone explain how he wasnt!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think the clincher in this case was that he was able to point to evidence which showed that Airbus had sent contractors offsite without remittance when it suited them - although it isn't clear in this article.

                    So it doesn't really change much. Seems that the clauses themsevles (MOO, ROS) are meaningless unless you can point to a situation where it has actually / was likely to occur - and demonstrate that the clause isn't just artificial.

                    However, encouraging to see that the tribunal was able see sense and recognise he was not the same as an employee.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X