There are a number of distinct but related arguments here.
The usual money chain for a contractor involved in a scheme is:
End client > agency #1 > agency #2 > promoter > third party > individual
Money which is remuneration is subject to PAYE.
For there to be PAYE there needs to be an employer (collector and payer of tax).
In most situations of employee/er that is simple.
In the above situation, perhaps not.
Where the "employer" is offshore, HMRC has the ability/power/discretion to ask the end client to pay. This is the s 684 argument. Despite Hoey and Addo there are still legs in this.
Where the arrangement with the agency permits, it is possible that section 44 applies. This essentially says that the agency is de facto employer.
Could both arguments apply? Possibly.
Could only one apply at the exclusion of the other? Possibly.
As for details of individual cases, heard and pending, either I don't know or I cannot say.
The usual money chain for a contractor involved in a scheme is:
End client > agency #1 > agency #2 > promoter > third party > individual
Money which is remuneration is subject to PAYE.
For there to be PAYE there needs to be an employer (collector and payer of tax).
In most situations of employee/er that is simple.
In the above situation, perhaps not.
Where the "employer" is offshore, HMRC has the ability/power/discretion to ask the end client to pay. This is the s 684 argument. Despite Hoey and Addo there are still legs in this.
Where the arrangement with the agency permits, it is possible that section 44 applies. This essentially says that the agency is de facto employer.
Could both arguments apply? Possibly.
Could only one apply at the exclusion of the other? Possibly.
As for details of individual cases, heard and pending, either I don't know or I cannot say.
Comment