The following Employment Tax guidance note Produced by Tolley provides comprehensive and up to date tax information covering:
Ever since its introduction in 2000, the off payroll (IR35) legislation has been consistently problematic. In particular:
the regime is viewed as unfair because it treats those within it as quasi-employees but without giving them employment rights. As a result, those affected by the regime have long campaigned for its abolition
it is often far from clear whether an individual’s engagements are within, or outside, the rules (see the Establishing employment status guidance note). This causes uncertainty for individuals who frequently need specialist advice
HMRC investigations are burdensome and can be so expensive that the business closes down
Each of these is discussed briefly below.
The original press release which introduced the first iteration of the legislation in 1999 said the rules were needed because personal service company (PSC) structures had damaging social consequences. Individuals working through PSCs:
“...may find their terms and conditions altered ― perhaps losing entitlement to sick pay or maternity leave. They may even lose their jobs without entitlement to notice or redundancy pay. They will usually have no right to any claim for unfair dismissal and may lose their entitlement to social security benefits through a failure to make adequate contributions.”
However, the introduction of the off payroll working rules (IR35) did nothing to address this situation. It deducts employee’s and employer’s NIC from the workers’ deemed salary, because the individuals are deemed to be ‘disguised employees’ of their clients. However, there is no employment law recognition for these individuals.. This means, for example, that individuals cannot claim unfair dismissal if their engagement is terminated, they have no rights to statutory redundancy and cannot normally obtain Jobseeker’s Allowance.
This has created a sense of unfairness about the whole regime, even before considering the practical issues faced by those potentially affected.
Calls for the abolition of the off payroll rules (IR35) continue, but despite a recommendation by the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) for its suspension, successive Governments have all
**Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free for 7 days with a trial of TolleyGuidance.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Capital vs revenue expenditureExpenditure of a capital nature is not allowed as a deduction when calculating trading profits. Expenditure of a revenue nature is allowable, provided there is no specific statutory rule prohibiting a deduction and the expenditure also satisfies the wholly and
If the taxpayer does not have sufficient information to enable them to complete the tax return in the time allowed, they should include either a best estimate or a provisional figure. The taxpayer should not either leave a box blank or enter ‘details to follow’ as HMRC will regard this as an
IntroductionA pension scheme that is not a registered scheme is known as an EFRBS. Since April 6 2006, the distinction between what were approved and unapproved pension schemes has been replaced with a distinction between registered and unregistered schemes.The position as it applies with effect
Restriction of carry forward and carry back of trading lossesFollowing the extensive changes to the loss carry forward provisions introduced from 1 April 2017, the anti-avoidance rules restricting the offset of trading losses following a change in ownership were tightened up and extended.