I am fairly convinced re the answer but am following the CIS queries with interest. An electrician has a gauffer. The firm does some work for contractors and some work in private homes. The gauffer does have the freedom to say he isn't available and the boss might say he isn't required. The boss assumed that the gauffer is CIS as they are "in the construction industry" but I think he can just invoice the firm without CIS as the firm does mixed work.
Is it OK not to apply CIS?
Replies (15)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Hope this one isnt going to turn into an episode of caddyshack or the great british sewing bee.
Anyway not sure what you mean by gauffer.
Is the "gauffer" practicably speaking a subcontractor ? to the contractor? - iam presuming this is the case.
if the "gauffer" is a subcontractor to contractor then its within cis - unless its not cis work or contractor turns out to be end user
Reasoning
work in private homes is never not cis as the default for contractors!!!!
If an individual engages person to work in home then individual is not in business so cis does not apply.
If the worker engaged by the homeowner then subcontractors that work out to subcontractor then the default is that cis applies so that subcontracted work - as the exemption available for the homeowner enaging someone simply doesnt apply and this is deemed to be like any other construction operation.
Anyway not sure what you mean by gauffer.
Well, I inferred that he was called a gauffer (rhymes with chauffeur) because he was asked to go for things
Gauffer (n) does exist ... meaning "a heated implement used to crimp the lace edges of a garment"!
My knowledge of electrical works is somewhat out-of-date but doesn't go back in time far enough to determine whether this was once a specialist role - although I do remember cotton sheathing around mains cables.
But I agree gofer is more likely here ... whilst smiling at memories of Caddyshack.
"a heated implement used to crimp the lace edges of a garment"!
Yes - they use them all the time on the Great British Sewing Bee.
Might I suggest the spelling as gopher (pronounced "go-fer")? It's a pun involving a furry little North American rodent, which presumably scurries around in a suitably industrious manner. Google suggests that it's a popular term for a production assistant in Hollywood.
I think you've given us information to help us decide whether he was an employee and then asked whether CIS should be deducted.
Whether he's doing what you call "mixed work" isn't relevant. A fella fitting a kitchen for, say, Wickes is absolutely subject to CIS if Wickes are paying him.
What you need to know is what the gauffer (not seen this spelling before - I thought you meant gaffer, at first) actually does.
Either way, he is quite entitled to invoice for the full amount. The decision to deduct CIS lies with the contractor and there's no obligation for the subcontractor to show it on his invoice, though it can be useful if the contractor is not very good at getting the tax deduction right.
I think you mean gofer/gopher (that’s what we used to call them but the term is probably banned now for upsetting someone) because they were asked to go for this or go for that,
Why would CIS not apply? Same as any work you need to look at each job and check if the works fall within CIS, basically they are a labourer for the electrician so even if the works that the electrician does (ie in a private home)is outside CIS the ‘gofers’ work may still be, so if I was the electrician I would make CIS deductions where necessary
"I think you mean gopher"
I was waiting for the caddyshack moment - cheers
"Why would CIS not apply?"
I think the danger here is unless you know the answer you might presume that work on private individuals residential homes is outside the scope of cis - its not exactly normal building site work. Life certainly would be easier if that was the case.
OP means gaffer -> a person in charge of others; a boss.
Not gauffer -> a heated implement used to crimp the lace edges of a garment.
OP means gaffer -> a person in charge of others; a boss.
Does she ?
I thought a gaffer was a fella who uses a gaffe.
Cant see how the OP can manage to spell ‘gaffer’ wrong twice!
At least gopher seems plausible with the word ‘gaupher’ as in pronounced the same
Cant see how the OP can manage to spell ‘gaffer’ wrong twice!
That will be doubletrouble won’t it
Looks like this work is right up the gofer.co.uk so perhaps - gofer it is