New payment scheme for family therapists forcing them onto PAYE
A fried has posed the following dilemma. I don't know the answer but thought that AccountingWeb readers may be able to help.
Both my children are taught at home as they are autistic. We are given funding by our local London borough and pay teachers/therapists to educate the children. The money is paid quarterly: I submit a signed statement from each of the therapists as to how much they received and I’m reimbursed for the lump sum up to an agreed amount (unfortunately insufficient – but that’s another story!). All the therapists are self-employed and fulfil that criteria as far as I’m aware (in that they don’t get paid holiday or sick leave; work for other families besides our own; hours per week vary from therapist to therapist and week to week but ranges from 9 hours to 16 hours; they provide their own work equipment; they have to pay for their own training). Although I’m not responsible for the therapists tax returns, none have had any problems about being accepted as self-employed by the IR.
We have just been informed that the way we receive our payments is going to be changed: the money will still come from the borough but in the form of a ‘personal budget’. We have been told that under this new payment scheme all therapists employed by ourselves must be employees, and therefore subject to PAYE. The My contact at the London borough say they have discussed the matter with HMRC and that was their conclusion: no argument! Everything else remains the same, we still have to find the therapists, negotiate pay etc.
Leaving aside the additional cost of this, I’m concerned from the therapist viewpoint that if their work for us is constituted as PAYE, then the IR can argue that if they work for anyone else on the same basis, that should also be PAYE.
My question is: do you think it’s worth trying to argue that because the circumstances of their work hasn’t altered one iota, they should still be entitled to remain self-employed (in other words where the money comes from is irrelevant – what is relevant is the terms of their service)? Or does the London Boriugh have us over a barrel as ultimately they are paying the money to us: and if they decide that anybody who works for us with their money is PAYE, then so be it?
- BTC is slow 259 3
- Voluntary Disclosure 198 2
- Director registration for SA question 457 17
- How to revise RTI for Moneysoft 184 3
- Issues with freelancer taking zero salary from limited company 328 6
- Tax on LLP members drawings not covered by future profits 495 22
- valuation of vehicles 403 16
- Business only use of company car 693 26
- Dormant company late with their CH submission 508 14
- Penalties for late PAYE scheme 322 4
- Is there no lower level to the work a lawyer would take on. 956 29
- New Company reviews please 545 13
- How do you pay Inheritance Tax when HMRC haven't demanded it 314 4
- Ethical Issues / Conflict of Interest 266 2
- VAT with Russia 233 2
- VAT FRS percentage for sales person? 234 4
- Money Laundering Manual 304 11
- cgt quoted shares losses 249 2
- Scientist switch to accountancy - work experience? 1,122 29
- directors loan 370 8
- RTI Rollback to delete incorrect data 299
- Vouchedfor.co.uk 244
- Motor Traders Assistant Bookkeeping Programme queries 240
- Any thoughts on Capium? 234
- Tracesmart/Lexis Nexis AML software? Any opinions? 219
- auto enrolment 189
- Sage Compatible P60's Self Seal 177
- Continuity of practice-ACCA 158
- How to account for investment in JV? 152
- Recommended International mobile phone coverage and costs? 148