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?
- SA online - 4 hour limit 1,327 14
- IR35 deemed payment and dividends - practical considerations 173 3
- VAT on Hire Purchase 194 2
- "Audit Report" 93 1
- Annual tax investigation cover fee? 490 13
- Coding Notice 235 6
- UK company paying dividend to foreign shareholder 256 6
- New business - journal entries 420 22
- Is CGT roll over relief available for let property 229 3
- Payroll software 655 16
- Statutory accounts, current company address, or one that was correct at EOY? 284 5
- Are there Special Rules for Agencies? 403 10
- 100% Annual investment allowance on luxury cars 739 18
- B2B vat in the EU 197 4
- Samadian effect on self employed student support workers 206 4
- Changes to class 2 NIC's 240 3
- Client RTI Shows payments not his 205 4
- LLP as member of LLP 146 1
- Why should I retain membership? 2,855 48
- Alerting clients versus walking away from clients 526 7
- Auto enrolment excuses 882
- Feedback on accounts production software for IFRS 724
- Add T&Cs to Sales Order in Sage 417
- Social investment tax relief 223
- Digita Hosted Software 217
- Call Centre Data Costs 205
- accounting for this transaction 204
- Problems with Sage 50 Payroll v21(2015) 178
- Travel costs and contractors 177
- Buying goods in US and selling them to company in US 176