Well now, Simon, I really do think that HMRC and the court/s etc has pulled a fast one on self-employed-workers with their [weasel?] words of "... there is a mutuality of obligation between the worker to supply services and the engager to pay (MOO test)".
REASONING:
(A)- MOO means Mutuality Of Obligation.
(B)- In any credible commercial contract the engager of the self-employed-worker/s has a certain COMMERCIAL obligation to pay for the then "present-time contract" specified specific services provided by the self-employed-worker/s under a specific written contract, rather an uncertain MUTUAL obligation of continuity based on "understanding/s and/or usages", possibly based on "trust", built up from a social reputation etc over a very long period of time.
(C)- On the contrary, an unwritten and uncertain MUTUAL obligation of (MOO) self-employed-worker/s based on alleged vague verbal "understanding/s and/or usages" cannot have any credible place, particularly regarding the actual provision of services actually specified in a written commercial actual contract.
(D)- In my opinion, unless a "present-time" written contract specifically has written clause/s that sets out the uncertain hope/possibility of continuity of employment of self-employed-worker/s in the future in a "future-time" contract, after the end of a "present-time" written contract, then there cannot be any mutuality of obligation between the worker to supply services and the engager to pay (MOO test) whatsoever.
QUESTION to Simon:
Do you - or do you not - agree with my reasoning set out above, please?
Seeing as how you've TWICE asked ... What is the relevance of the appellant being an old soldier? ... perhaps you've anonymously forgotten that GB's Monarch's peace - so loved by lawyers - can allow GB to be independent from the humiliation of the occupation by cultures foreign to GB, including the all-too-frequently-forgotten-cultural-tradition Great British fairness.
As such (in my opinion) it seems time - high time - that there be a change in taxation law that obliges HMRC staff to prevent the situations reported by FTT: “HMRC’s recorded view that [James’s] ‘letter seems to have bounced around’ is an understatement”.
Furthermore, as the FTT noted in its decision, it has no jurisdiction in relation to HMRC’s general interaction with taxpayers – a source of frustration with which many will sympathise, in my opinion, it seems time - high time - for a further change of law ... that gives the FTT general jurisdiction in relation to HMRC’s general interaction with taxpayers who either currently in the GB military, or are veterans of the GB military.
I feel sure that you would agree with this sensible answer to your question.
I find it hilarious that one of our distinguished LAW MAKERS in the House of Lords is allegedly ignorant of the suite of tax laws passed - apparently like water - through the Houses of Parliament.
But then, I also found it funny peculiar that an alleged Jewish-heritage-paedophile, Lord Janner (deceased), the former Labour peer and MP, was ruled to be unfit to stand trial on child sexual abuse charges, after he had been suffering from dementia for a number of years - apparently CONCOMITANT with drawing several years of House of Lords "daily availability" payments ... FREE OF ALL TAXES !
NB: Membership of the House of Lords is neither an office nor employment and therefore payments are not liable for income tax. This was confirmed independently by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).
Please see webpage: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-finance-office/20...
Well now, my answer is:
HMT / HMRC really has to choose between:
(A) PAYE being universal, or
(B) Economic growth encouraged from and by sole traders and/or self employed people,
OR
... there might be voter pressures ...
So then, by their industrial inaction, one has to think that HMRC conclude that MTD is not possible for the very small income people, who clearly need the professional assistance of HMRC in accordance with HMRC's Charter, in my ever so 'umble opinion.
Surely the vogue for multiculturalism and diversity in business necessitates the survival of sole traders, and self-employed people.
Aren't those business sectors where economic growth - so urgently needed by HMG - may very well come from !
My answers
Well now, Simon, I really do think that HMRC and the court/s etc has pulled a fast one on self-employed-workers with their [weasel?] words of "... there is a mutuality of obligation between the worker to supply services and the engager to pay (MOO test)".
REASONING:
(A)- MOO means Mutuality Of Obligation.
(B)- In any credible commercial contract the engager of the self-employed-worker/s has a certain COMMERCIAL obligation to pay for the then "present-time contract" specified specific services provided by the self-employed-worker/s under a specific written contract, rather an uncertain MUTUAL obligation of continuity based on "understanding/s and/or usages", possibly based on "trust", built up from a social reputation etc over a very long period of time.
(C)- On the contrary, an unwritten and uncertain MUTUAL obligation of (MOO) self-employed-worker/s based on alleged vague verbal "understanding/s and/or usages" cannot have any credible place, particularly regarding the actual provision of services actually specified in a written commercial actual contract.
(D)- In my opinion, unless a "present-time" written contract specifically has written clause/s that sets out the uncertain hope/possibility of continuity of employment of self-employed-worker/s in the future in a "future-time" contract, after the end of a "present-time" written contract, then there cannot be any mutuality of obligation between the worker to supply services and the engager to pay (MOO test) whatsoever.
QUESTION to Simon:
Do you - or do you not - agree with my reasoning set out above, please?
Perhaps the couple were living in a caravan on site, when they were working (from home) on that same site ?
Seeing as how you've TWICE asked ... What is the relevance of the appellant being an old soldier? ... perhaps you've anonymously forgotten that GB's Monarch's peace - so loved by lawyers - can allow GB to be independent from the humiliation of the occupation by cultures foreign to GB, including the all-too-frequently-forgotten-cultural-tradition Great British fairness.
As such (in my opinion) it seems time - high time - that there be a change in taxation law that obliges HMRC staff to prevent the situations reported by FTT: “HMRC’s recorded view that [James’s] ‘letter seems to have bounced around’ is an understatement”.
Furthermore, as the FTT noted in its decision, it has no jurisdiction in relation to HMRC’s general interaction with taxpayers – a source of frustration with which many will sympathise, in my opinion, it seems time - high time - for a further change of law ... that gives the FTT general jurisdiction in relation to HMRC’s general interaction with taxpayers who either currently in the GB military, or are veterans of the GB military.
I feel sure that you would agree with this sensible answer to your question.
I find it hilarious that one of our distinguished LAW MAKERS in the House of Lords is allegedly ignorant of the suite of tax laws passed - apparently like water - through the Houses of Parliament.
But then, I also found it funny peculiar that an alleged Jewish-heritage-paedophile, Lord Janner (deceased), the former Labour peer and MP, was ruled to be unfit to stand trial on child sexual abuse charges, after he had been suffering from dementia for a number of years - apparently CONCOMITANT with drawing several years of House of Lords "daily availability" payments ... FREE OF ALL TAXES !
NB: Membership of the House of Lords is neither an office nor employment and therefore payments are not liable for income tax. This was confirmed independently by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).
Please see webpage:
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-finance-office/20...
Spot on.
ANSWER = No, in my opinion, given the ongoing matter of IR35.
Well now, my answer is:
HMT / HMRC really has to choose between:
(A) PAYE being universal, or
(B) Economic growth encouraged from and by sole traders and/or self employed people,
OR
... there might be voter pressures ...
So then, by their industrial inaction, one has to think that HMRC conclude that MTD is not possible for the very small income people, who clearly need the professional assistance of HMRC in accordance with HMRC's Charter, in my ever so 'umble opinion.
Surely the vogue for multiculturalism and diversity in business necessitates the survival of sole traders, and self-employed people.
Aren't those business sectors where economic growth - so urgently needed by HMG - may very well come from !
Ho ! Ho ! Ho !