HMRC defeats BBC presenters in IR35 tax tribunal
- 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!
BBC presenters lose IR35 appeal
Collapse
X
-
-
Some good news though: -
HMRC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding carelessness, meaning it could only claim sums for arrangements going back four years, rather than six. -
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostSome good news though: -
HMRC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding carelessness, meaning it could only claim sums for arrangements going back four years, rather than six.
the split decision was also interesting. This proves once again the fallacy that a client can accurately determine the employment status of an individual. If judges disagree, what chance has a client?Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View Postyes, to a certain extent.
the split decision was also interesting. This proves once again the fallacy that a client can accurately determine the employment status of an individual. If judges disagree, what chance has a client?
That's why the CEST tool needs to be fit for purpose and the result fit to stand up alone without any additional grey area.
Should be simple if the rules are so clear and logical that a tool can be used. Why they can't have CEST static in the content and therefore outcome shows HMRC need to tighten up their rule definitions so it's clear what is being asked when the client comes to use the tool.
If CEST was comprehensive enough and complete (no change to CEST unless there's a change to employment law) then everyone would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.Comment
-
Originally posted by PerfectStorm View PostWonder if they had QDOS and they will pay up?Comment
-
Originally posted by Hobosapien View PostThat's why the CEST tool needs to be fit for purpose and the result fit to stand up alone without any additional grey area.
Should be simple if the rules are so clear and logical that a tool can be used. Why they can't have CEST static in the content and therefore outcome shows HMRC need to tighten up their rule definitions so it's clear what is being asked when the client comes to use the tool.
If CEST was comprehensive enough and complete (no change to CEST unless there's a change to employment law) then everyone would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.
The only way that this mess can be resolved is for employment status to be determined by one court and then the 1TT and the ET will decide the implications in relation to tax or benefits as appropriate. This will never happen in my opinion, unless one particular political party sees it as a vote winner at any one time.Comment
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostSome good news though: -
HMRC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding carelessness, meaning it could only claim sums for arrangements going back four years, rather than six.
They would appear to be a lot of court bookings in the not too distant future the way they are carrying on. How do they have the resources for all these investigations?Comment
-
I hope the presenters now go to BBC and recoup 6 years worth of annual leave and employee benefits.Comment
-
Originally posted by Hobosapien View PostThat's why the CEST tool needs to be fit for purpose and the result fit to stand up alone without any additional grey area.
Should be simple if the rules are so clear and logical that a tool can be used. Why they can't have CEST static in the content and therefore outcome shows HMRC need to tighten up their rule definitions so it's clear what is being asked when the client comes to use the tool.
If CEST was comprehensive enough and complete (no change to CEST unless there's a change to employment law) then everyone would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.
However... the cynic in me (and I believe many others) says it is in the interests of HMRC and HMT to keep it just vague enough that they can cast their net as widely as possible to pull as many people into false deemed employment as they can. To tighten up rule definitions gives people a chance to find and exploit weaknesses.Comment
- 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