Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
- 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!
IR35 Myths
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View PostAnd the REAL real question is - if the answer to this question is as obvious to anyone else that looks at it as it is to us, how can they still be getting away with it?
On that last point, freelances of all kinds, including us, represent £300bn of income to UK's GDP, another fact that ministers are only just beginning to comprehend.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by technobabble View PostSorry I am newly back to the UK and trying to understand IR35
If I work for 2 or more clients and invoice all of them, but pay myself 50% of the fees received via PAYE (through my own Ltd payroll) leaving the rest to roll up in the business how does that work?
I am accounting for PAYE on some income not drawing out dividends on rest.
Can it be the case that I consider some aspects of the roles within IR35 but not all so I am part and part? Or can I pay myself less than the company is paid for the work done?
Thanks
Mark
If you have two contracts side by side, one can be inside, one outside. Have a chat with your accountant about how to most efficiently get the money to you - that's what you're paying them for after all.The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't existComment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostExcept every case that has been won - and there are a lot of them - have centered on that work for pay situation and whether or not the worker was required to do work and where and how. Only HMRC keeps bringing cases challenging that and only HMRC keeps losing.
So the real question is why doesn't CEST reflect case law rather than HMRC's view of what case law should be?
Whether big business believe CEST is made up nonsense or based on cast iron actual case facts doesn't matter. CEST is hassle, risk is unwanted, absolutely perfect response from business for the government... in the short term at least.Comment
-
Originally posted by LondonManc View PostIR35 works on a contract-by-contract basis, not a person.
If you have two contracts side by side, one can be inside, one outside. Have a chat with your accountant about how to most efficiently get the money to you - that's what you're paying them for after all.
Thanks - I don't yet have the Ltd company nor an accountant I only arrived back in the UK on 1st Dec ))
I am getting the idea on IR35 though thanks for your help.
Can a contract be both within IR35 and without ? - for example if I taken on to write a report and make specialised recommendation which is consultancy but do some day to day work to cover an absent team member which I would consider a PAYE'd role. I could invoice both aspects separately and charge different rates etc.Comment
-
Originally posted by technobabble View PostThanks - I don't yet have the Ltd company nor an accountant I only arrived back in the UK on 1st Dec ))
I am getting the idea on IR35 though thanks for your help.
Can a contract be both within IR35 and without ? - for example if I taken on to write a report and make specialised recommendation which is consultancy but do some day to day work to cover an absent team member which I would consider a PAYE'd role. I could invoice both aspects separately and charge different rates etc.
That said, even small pieces of work as you say could be outside if the contract and working practices are right.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Working practices
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
That said, even small pieces of work as you say could be outside if the contract and working practices are right.
What I am now trying to understand is how that interacts with one of the pillars
"a lack of Direction and Control (D&C)"
Ordinarily a staff member would be under the control of someone who knows how to undertake a task and delegates that to get work done. In my area the client can't direct and control my work as they don't have any understanding of it, only that it needs to be done but not how etc.
If I am asked to help cover a non-specialised task then I would see that as clearly IR35 and that part of my work I would need to put through PAYE. But if I am doing my consultancy work then that is for the client but only I can undertake or know how to etc. Am I approaching this correctly?Comment
-
Originally posted by Maslins View PostThere is no such proportion. Theoretically you could have a one day/month contract that was inside IR35. Part time employees don't stop being employees just because they're part time.
In practice the less time you work for a given company the less likely it is to be deemed inside IR35, but don't fall into the trap of thinking just because a contract is less than full time hours it can't be inside IR35.Comment
-
I was shown a contract today, by the consultancy I work via, for a piece of work they're doing elsewhere. The clause we discussed is moot for them because the person they placed is an employee.
I don't recall the exact wording but it was essentially saying the consultancy is liable for all taxes, etc should the determination by the client be wrong and they haven't already made the 'right' deductions. Essentially, it read like the client is passing the liability buck.
I can't see how that's legal or enforceable when the law is clear (is it?) that the liability rests with client.Comment
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostI was shown a contract today, by the consultancy I work via, for a piece of work they're doing elsewhere. The clause we discussed is moot for them because the person they placed is an employee.
I don't recall the exact wording but it was essentially saying the consultancy is liable for all taxes, etc should the determination by the client be wrong and they haven't already made the 'right' deductions. Essentially, it read like the client is passing the liability buck.
I can't see how that's legal or enforceable when the law is clear (is it?) that the liability rests with client.
Equally the consultancy signed it so without push back these things will continue.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment