Tax tribunal finds contractor wasn't employee Tax tribunal finds contractor wasn't employee
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    Super poster

    pmeswani has more data than eek

    pmeswani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In my homie
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Tax tribunal finds contractor wasn't employee

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

  2. #2

    Double Godlike!

    Spacecadet is a permanent contractor

    Spacecadet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Jupiter
    Posts
    12,413

    Default

    "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

  3. #3

    Richer than sasguru

    DimPrawn is a fount of knowledge

    DimPrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Brexit Britain
    Posts
    34,752

    Default

    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?

  4. #4

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW is a fount of knowledge

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,540

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #5

    My post count is Majestic

    d000hg - scorchio!

    d000hg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    My house
    Posts
    32,189

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryPoppins View Post
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
    Urine is quite nourishing

  6. #6

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth is a fount of knowledge

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,207

    Default

    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; 15th February 2011 at 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)

  7. #7

    Dirty spekulant

    Jog On - scorchio!

    Jog On's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Troll farm somewhere in Russia
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    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; 15th February 2011 at 13:20.
    Whatever...

  8. #8

    Super poster

    Gibbon is NOT a disguised employee

    Gibbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote 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

  9. #9

    Banned

    MayContainNuts has no reputation


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    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!

  10. #10

    Super poster

    centurian has more data than eek


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,837

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •