Re: IR 35 : Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:57 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

In the old days as director you used to be able to pay yourself a dividend instead of PAYE which provided quite a saving for both you and company - HMRC seem to have clamped down on this these days

Dividends can still be taken without a problem. A problem only arises where HMRC considers the company to be a personal service company where the nature of the relationship between the one-man and his company's customer(s) is akin to employee and employer.

Re: IR 35 : Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:14 am  

Dally wrote:

Dividends can still be taken without a problem. A problem only arises where HMRC considers the company to be a personal service company where the nature of the relationship between the one-man and his company's customer(s) is akin to employee and employer.

I just hope it applies to Tony Blair, Gordon Osbourn, "contracted" TV presenters etc. and the rest of us equally.

Re: IR 35 : Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:16 am  

PCollinson1990 wrote:

I just hope it applies to Tony Blair, Gordon Osbourn, "contracted" TV presenters etc. and the rest of us equally.

It does apply to TV presenters at BBC as I understand it.

Re: IR 35 : Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:52 am  

Dally wrote:

It does apply to TV presenters at BBC as I understand it.

So long as it's fair, the whole system needs a rethink, it's way too complicated and riddled with loopholes. Maybe we'll start taxing the big corporates as well. (Too much to hope for) Also need to look at sports, bands, everything.

Re: IR 35 : Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:28 pm  

PCollinson1990 wrote:

So long as it's fair, the whole system needs a rethink, it's way too complicated and riddled with loopholes. Maybe we'll start taxing the big corporates as well. (Too much to hope for) Also need to look at sports, bands, everything.

These issues arise - like part-time jobs - due to Gordon Brown's stealth tax. He kept increasing the rate of employers NI which has caused great upheaval and distortions in the labour market. Yet another example of our beloved politicians' penchant for counter-productive, ill-thought out policy.

Re: IR 35 : Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:13 pm  

http://www.contractrecruit.co.uk/news/h ... m-253.html

http://www.contractrecruit.co.uk/news/h ... m-253.html

Re: IR 35 : Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:47 pm  

I guess that when large corporations who avoid paying taxes in the UK by employing simple wheezes like registering their profits in low tax locations like Ireland, end up with sweetheart deals that equate to corporation tax rates of less than 1%; it is little wonder that self-employed builders and such get brassed off when they fall foul of a more rigorous application of IR35.

In reality, hordes of people have been conning the system for years by purporting to be self employed for tax purposes, but actually doing all their work for one client; and whilst it doesn't seem unreasonable to close such loopholes, it *feels* unreasonable to go after the little guy when the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google avoid billions in taxes.

Re: IR 35 : Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:36 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I guess that when large corporations who avoid paying taxes in the UK by employing simple wheezes like registering their profits in low tax locations like Ireland, end up with sweetheart deals that equate to corporation tax rates of less than 1%; it is little wonder that self-employed builders and such get brassed off when they fall foul of a more rigorous application of IR35.

In reality, hordes of people have been conning the system for years by purporting to be self employed for tax purposes, but actually doing all their work for one client; and whilst it doesn't seem unreasonable to close such loopholes, it *feels* unreasonable to go after the little guy when the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google avoid billions in taxes.

You right, in part, but a lot of contractors work for multiple clients, but then I know people working "self employed" who have been at the same employer for 15 years+