Share this content

CIS

CIS

Didn't find your answer?

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.

avatar
By rmillaree
04th Nov 2021 15:39

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.

Thanks (1)
Replying to rmillaree:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Nov 2021 15:45

rmillaree wrote:

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

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
04th Nov 2021 17:42

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My knowledge of electrical works is somewhat out-of-date but doesn't go back in time far enough to determine whether this was once a specialist role - although I do remember cotton sheathing around mains cables.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.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By rmillaree
04th Nov 2021 17:53

"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.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Catherine Newman
05th Nov 2021 10:55

Haha. I didn't know how to spell it but wanted to ask the question. Now I know how to spell it-thank you all.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
05th Nov 2021 16:38

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.

Thanks (1)
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Nov 2021 15:43

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By doubletrouble
04th Nov 2021 16:39

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

Thanks (2)
Replying to doubletrouble:
avatar
By rmillaree
04th Nov 2021 16:51

"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.

Thanks (0)
Replying to rmillaree:
avatar
By doubletrouble
04th Nov 2021 16:58

I couldn’t leave the little gophers out!
Great film by the way

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
04th Nov 2021 17:53

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.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
04th Nov 2021 18:07

Wanderer wrote:

OP means gaffer -> a person in charge of others; a boss.

Does she ?

I thought a gaffer was a fella who uses a gaffe.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By doubletrouble
04th Nov 2021 18:38

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

Thanks (0)
Replying to doubletrouble:
avatar
By rmillaree
04th Nov 2021 18:48

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

Thanks (2)
avatar
By mumpin
05th Nov 2021 12:08

Lighting crews have a Gaffer.

The Gaffer is the one in charge.

Thanks (0)
Share this content