General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

I suppose this the problem with your thinking. If you only look at one tag line and then apply to something has complex as IR35 then your going to get the wrong outcome.

If you are controlled, there is no MOO and you have no right to sub. Then its against IR35 and HMRC could come after you.

It's only confusing to those people who are still trying to exploit the loophole and are trying to find the grey areas to avoid tax.

[eFestivals]

So be careful when engaging self employed people not working through LTDs! They get their tax wrong my understanding is you can be held liable. But I am no expert in this side of things.

Funnily enough, I'm expert enough to ensure I don't get caught by that for some self-employed that I use on a casual basis. But being expert enough is really really not difficult.

As I say, it's only the people who are taking the piss who get clobbered. It's the difference between contrived and genuine.

[eFestivals]

Not true.... It impacts everyone who offers personal services because the tag line you posted is FAR from the reality of the issue. Its way more complicated.

then I have to wonder why the tax man isn't chasing me.

Oh, that'll be because neither I or those I use are taking the piss. Easy!

[eFestivals]

You say "it's way more complicated". It's really not. Keep it simple and nothing is complicated.

People make it complicated only because they're trying to exploit the grey areas.

[eFestivals]

A lot of people have been done who simply where ignorant of the law. That is the reality.

I'm neither ignorant of the law nor taking the piss.

They're the only ones who get done.

[eFestivals]

Well you certainly do not understand IR35 properly... So you are certainly ignorant of that much.

Says the man who believes it'll take weeks and be very complicated to work out how much combined NI an employee and employer should pay.

[eFestivals]

Its a fact... You don't.... Why so hard to admit it ? I don't expect you to understand it. But you could at least admit you got it wrong ?

It's only 'complicated' if a freelancer puts themselves into that grey area, and they'd only be doing that to avoid taxes.

It's when a freelancers is not really a freelancer, but is using that to disguise their employed status.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

Fact is IR35 is a concern for every freelancer. IR35 is not simple and straight forward. Which is proven by your terrible post above pointing out the three week example which can clearly fall foul of the rules.

it might strictly-in-theory fall within those rules but I guarantee that you'll see no example ever hit a tax tribunal where a contractor is doing three week contracts independently at always-different companies.

The very fact of them only doing those three week contracts and at different companies proves them as that contractor.

Of course, they have to be working independently on those contracts, because otherwise they become a standard temporary worker who should be on the books as a temporary employee.

As i keep saying to you, it's exceedingly easy. It's only not easy if that contractor is trying to take the piss in regard to those rules.

Which your insistence says that you are.

[eFestivals]

You just added something in their to make you closer to being right.

no, it was just a clarification that you clearly needed to get past your own stupidity.

All the way thru I've said "it's only an issue for those taking the piss", which is what pretending to be a freelancer when you're not is.

For example, being told start and end times for a days work could see you fail IR35.

only if the contract is of a long enough length where 'freelancer' status can be thrown into doubt.

No matter if the contract last three weeks or seven years...

Nope.

One year would not be acceptable - under just employment law and not tax law - unless it was clearly some independent work with no expectation of attendence in one place on a near-daily basis.

Length of contract is not an IR35 pointer.

yes it is, tho not purely by just that one thing.

But people HAVE been done on IR35 doing three month projects I understand.

They've been done under employment law too.

As I keep saying, it's the pisstaking which matters in regard to these things, by pretending to be a contractor when you're not in the real world.

Apology accepted

None needed from me, but I'm still waiting for yours for your laughable comment about how difficult it would be to work out how much personal and employers NI is payable on a particular income.

[TalkShow Bob]

Unfortunately you can't "avoid" the point that tax is being avoided in your employment. If you are working for someone and they are paying you in this manner employers national insurance is being avoided. That company could employee someone on PAYE, and pay everything that goes with that. Instead they employee you as a freelancer, avoid the employers national insurance and also the costs of employing someone for real. Which could result in you either being paid more due to that saving (a win win situation) or them keeping their tax profile low.

Im not having ago, I think its fine, but tax is being avoided here. I don't see how you can claim otherwise. And its always to someones benefit. Either the companies or an individual. If there was no benefit it wouldn't be done would it.

[eFestivals]

So in other words... The length of contract has zero to do with if you found to have fallen foul or not as the same test applies before and after the one year rule. LMAO

keep showing how stupid you are if you want to.

The length of contract is an indicator of what the arrangement *really* is. It does not define it by itself.

A short contract that is strictly against the IR35 rules alongside other contracts which are clearly not would not see that contractor at a tax tribunal for that one short contract, because the other contracts would help define that contractor as a genuine contractor.

As I keep saying but you're too stupid to take in, it's the pisstakers who fall foul of the rules and no one else.

[TalkShow Bob]

You are clearly not reducing the amount of tax due to the absolute limit but you are also not paying as much as you could possibly see yourself pay either. If I am reading what you have posted correctly ? So yeah, you pay more than you are legally asked to do so. So do I!!! I take more salary than I am legally abliged to do so. For many reasons. Most of because it just feels right. But I am still a tax avoider.

Self employment is a form of tax avoidance. If it was a totally level society we would all being paying the same under PAYE and there is no reason why you couldn't be forced to operate under PAYE rules. Instead of, as I understand it, less taxing self employment route.

[eFestivals]

Self employment is a form of tax avoidance.

Only if you contrive a self-employed status to avoid tax.

If it's not contrived and is genuine self-employment then while the treasury receives less in NI that it otherwise would (via the loss of employers NI), that's the way rules have been designed to work, and it is not avoiding tax.

Contriving a status to avoid tax is what is tax avoidance, nothing else. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?

[TalkShow Bob]

Only if you contrive a self-employed status to avoid tax.

If it's not contrived and is genuine self-employment then while the treasury receives less in NI that it otherwise would (via the loss of employers NI), that's the way rules have been designed to work, and it is not avoiding tax.

Contriving a status to avoid tax is what is tax avoidance, nothing else. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?

[eFestivals]

I think your getting confused between tax avoidence and evasion? If your purposfully lieing about a tax code surly that evasion?

Nope, no confusion here.

Yes, lying about a tax code would be evasion and clearly illegal.

Working to the self-employed rules on a genuine basis sees the treasury receive less money via their own rules in the way they've been designed to work, but no tax is either avoided or evaded because it's sticking to bother the letter and spirit of those rules.

(the fact that those rules allow someone to contribute less money is something entirely different to both avoidance and evasion. I agree with what you said above, the difference in money paid to the state should be addressed).

Contriving a self-employed status to make those lower payments to the state is (in the first place) avoidance.

But it's also against the law (because contriving a status to avoid tax is illegal, tho the trend is to ignore that fact), and so also evasion. This is why the taxman is able to shut down the likes of the Jimmy Carr scheme and collect the tax that hasn't been paid via that contrived scheme.

[eFestivals]

yup that very much where he is getting it wrong

Nowt wrong in anything I've said.

Avoidance and evasion have been the same thing in law for about 15 years. People like to pretend they're not tho.

The difficulty from the tax collection side of things is identifying what is contrived and what is not. The IR35 rules came in to try and make that distinction clear, but the c**ts of this world have managed to find further grey areas within that to keep their tax evasion going.

[eFestivals]

So it wasn't avoidance in the first instance... It was evasion and illegal!

You have a funny way of thinking about this.

It's avoidance if you get away with it and it's evasion if you don't. It's really very simple, to everyone but the simple minded.

In law there is no longer such a thing as tax avoidance. It's either a genuine tax scheme used genuinely (so not for the purposes of keeping a tax bill down, but merely a situation that naturally comes about) or it is illegal evasion.

[eFestivals]

You mean it was badly worded, confused everyone and left to the courts to work out what the hell they meant by "employee"....

nope, it was worded in just the way that was intended, so that those who are rich enough to afford the best 'tax advice' can continue to take the piss.

It's what every tax law has always been designed to do. Taxes are for little people.

Avoidance and evasion are not the same thing. Never have been! Can you post anything to back your points up ?

In law they are, and have been for a while.

Everything else is just a play on words by c**ts to try and shift the blame from themselves.

[lost]

Avoidance and evasion are not the same thing. Never have been! Can you post anything to back your points up ?

[TalkShow Bob]

You was basically saying it was more hassle than it was worth so I would suggest its the hassle more than being happy to volunteer extra tax which is the driving factor here. is that fair to say ?

Anyway... I was never trying to say you was wrong, right or anything... I think you should use the tax rules to your advantage if you want to.

No that is tax evasion... That is your misunderstanding...

[eFestivals]

this - avoidance acting within the law to minimize tax liable on purchases or income

eg buying duty free at an airport

converting your car to run on lpg

putting money in an Isa or pension

evasion is acting illegally to avoid tax like running your car on red diesel or buying tobacco off some bloke down the pub

I run my VeeDub on LPG. Not to avoid taxes, but to be green. But I do love paying just 60p a litre for fuel.

That is not 'tax avoidance' anyway. That is genuine use of a genuine tax rule.

'Tax avoidance' is more normally the words used for a Jimmy Carr type of scheme. The tax rules being exploited exist for genuine reasons - so it can be said it's within tax law (tho that's a disingenuous use of words) - but Jimmy's use of it is purely to lessen his tax liabilities, is not a genuine use of those tax rules, and so is actually illegal tax evasion. The scheme can be shut down and every penny avoided via that scheme is liable to be paid to the taxman.

So ultimately, 'tax avoidance' doesn't exist.

[lost]

That is not 'tax avoidance' anyway. That is genuine use of a genuine tax rule.

'Tax avoidance' is more normally the words used for a Jimmy Carr type of scheme. The tax rules being exploited exist for genuine reasons - so it can be said it's within tax law (tho that's a disingenuous use of words) - but Jimmy's use of it is purely to lessen his tax liabilities, is not a genuine use of those tax rules, and so is actually illegal tax evasion. The scheme can be shut down and every penny avoided via that scheme is liable to be paid to the taxman.

So ultimately, 'tax avoidance' doesn't exist.

Edited January 11, 2013 by lost

[Purple Monkey]

Discuss

Edited January 12, 2013 by Purple Monkey

[TalkShow Bob]

Anyone watching Borgen - I think she looks like the PM in her portrate, obviously not in the version above.

It does, Carr is exactly the same, as David Cameron said at the time he had done nothing illegal though he thought it was morally questionable. Carr originally came out and said he paid the right amount of tax and then obviously having people shout "pay your taxes Jimmy" all the way through his next show made him realise he was going to loose more money through damage to his standing than leaving the scheme. He then said he would stop using it but won't have to pay any of those taxes back and would be perfectly free to rejoin one of those schemes again tomorrow as anyone else could.

[The Nal]

Discuss