Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Off payroll to become on payroll

by
26th Jul 2012
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The government has introduced a high number of measures to ensure that the UK tax system becomes a simple and transparent one, explains the CIPP’s Diana Bruce.

It is all about the right tax at the time for the exchequer which for those of you who know all about the introduction of payroll reporting in real time (RTI) then this will be a familiar phrase. The right tax at the right time is where the government is tackling tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax minimisation.

A review was launched at the beginning of the year into the tax arrangements of public sector appointees with a view to establishing the extent of arrangements which could allow public sector appointees to minimise their tax payments. The review revealed that almost 2,500 of these workers have not actually been on the payroll and in some cases this has been going on for several years. Although the review recognises that there are circumstances where it may be appropriate for an employer to appoint an individual off payroll, the rules associated with employing people off payroll will be tightened from September 2012. The changes include that the most senior staff must be on the payroll, unless there are exceptional temporary circumstances, and that departments should have the right to seek assurance that income tax and national insurance obligations are being met.

Taxation of ‘controlling persons’

In a related publication - Consultation into the Taxation of Controlling Persons, the government is consulting about the tax obligations of senior individuals, whether in the private or public sector, who are in controlling positions and are contracted through a personal services company (PSC). A PSC is a limited company where the main shareholder is also the director and is also typically the only employee. In some cases friends and relatives are also directors, shareholders and/or employees. The PSC contracts with the client to supply the services of the director and invoices for the services of the director.

There are many cases where the use of a PSC is for legitimate commercial reasons and many businesses do start as small limited companies. However, according to government research, it has become increasingly clear that there is an established and growing problem with people using intermediaries to disguise employment. Working through an intermediary provides an opportunity to minimise, or in some cases avoid completely paying income tax and NI that would otherwise be payable.

IR35 simplified

In cases such as these there is already anti-avoidance legislation known as IR35 (part of the Income Tax Earnings and Pension Act (ITEPA) 2003) to ensure that individuals do not gain a tax or NI advantage. This legislation requires the intermediary to pay tax and NI on all income from a contract which would be a contract of employment if it wasn’t for the arrangement with the PSC.

When IR35 was introduced 10 years ago, it was unusual for a senior/controlling person to be engaged through their own limited company. The government believes that IR35 remains the correct approach to address this mismatch where intermediaries are used in circumstances which would otherwise be employment between the worker and the engaging organisation. However, they have also recognised that IR35 can be difficult to understand. Deciding whether the relationship between the worker and engager is one of employment relies on case law principles laid down by the courts. This applies in IR35 and non-IR35 circumstances. The case law is reliant on the facts of each individual case and people working through PSCs have said that they often find it difficult to establish if IR35 would apply to them.

As a result, HMRC has worked with external stakeholders to simplify the guidance for IR35 to make it easier to understand, and has also developed business entity tests and example scenarios to demonstrate when and why IR35 applies. Alongside this new guidance HMRC has also made improvements to the way it polices IR35 including strengthening their specialist compliance teams and altering the way they approach investigations in this area.

Tax and NI implications

When a limited company is engaged and paid for the services of a worker, the payment from the engaging organisation is made without the deduction of income tax and NI. This is because the payment is a legitimate, invoiced, commercial transaction and there is no requirement for the payments to have these deductions made even where the individual doing the work is working on terms and conditions that would otherwise make them an employee of the engaging organisation.

The PSC can also deduct any allowable expenses from their gross profit and pay corporation tax on the net profits in the normal way. The rate of corporation tax for small companies is currently 20% increasing for larger companies to 24%. Depending on how the director/shareholder then chooses to withdraw the profits from the PSC, the profits can be withdrawn:

  • as earnings with income tax and NI deducted from the money they withdraw
  • by distributing dividends, where payments will be subject to income tax but not to NI payments
  • as a directors’ loan

Again, these arrangements are all perfectly legitimate and many people will use a mixture of these methods to take money out of the PSC. They can do this even where, in the absence of the PSC, they would have been an employee of the engaging organisation. In doing so in such cases means that the individual can maintain their contributory benefits and also take advantage of their personal allowance; this is where the problem of tax and NI may become an issue.

It is not really surprising that there has been an increase in the use of PSCs as it a way of businesses operating in a cost effective way. There is no requirement for the engaging business to make employer NI payments for the workers, currently saving them 13.8% on earnings in excess of the secondary threshold. There are also further financial savings because there is no requirement for the engager to provide other benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay and pension contributions as they would for their other employees. The worker is also provided with choices of how to withdraw the profits from the PSC, which can be done in a tax efficient way and working through a PSC also provides the benefit of more generous expenses.

The example calculation below shows the difference between the amount of tax and NI which can be achieved if someone is on the payroll as opposed to being paid through an arrangement where someone is working through a PSC where IR35 does not apply or has not been applied and all the profits (from that year) have been withdrawn in the most tax efficient manner.

Payment to PSC

120,000

Salary to employee

120,000

Expenses

10,000

   N/A

Salary

0

120,000

PAYE

0

  37,928

Class 1 NICs primary

0

   4,960

Class 1 NICs secondary

0

14,629

Corporation tax @ 21%

23,100

   N/A

SA liability on dividends

11,205

   N/A

Total Tax Paid

£34,305

£57,516

(Based on 2010/11 tax rates)

The proposed solution

The government believes that, because of their role in an organisation, controlling persons should be required to meet their tax and NI obligations in a way which is transparent to their engager. This is not currently possible where they work through a PSC. The IR35 legislation places the obligation on the PSC to operate tax and NI in the relevant circumstances. This means that even where the appropriate amount for the circumstances of the case is being paid, that is not going to be clear and transparent to the engaging organisation. There is no reason it should be as the contract for the work has been made between the engaging organisation and the PSC under normal commercial practices.

The government has concluded that the most effective way to achieve the right level of transparency is for the engager to deduct income tax and NI at source for payments they make to controlling persons in the same way as they do for their other employees and not to make payments direct to any PSC those controlling persons may work through for any other purposes. This requirement will provide the necessary assurances to the engaging organisation in a transparent way. It will also reduce the loss of the relevant tax and Nl to the Exchequer which brings us back to the right tax at the right time.

The government is proposing to create in legislation (Finance Bill 2013) a provision which would require the engaging organisation to place all controlling persons on the payroll. This provision would apply even where they might be working through a PSC for other purposes and even if the payments made by the engaging organisation were made to the PSC and not directly to the individual worker. The intention would be that HMRC would police the new provision through risk-based employer compliance visits during which they would check that everyone who meets the definition of a “controlling person” of that organisation was on the payroll.

This provision would place the responsibility of deducting the tax and NI payments on the engaging organisation as well as making them liable for the relevant employer’s NI contributions. The IR35 legislation places this responsibility on the PSC. Placing the responsibility back onto the engaging organisation in the case of controlling persons removes some of the incentive for engaging organisations to encourage workers to be engaged through PSCs as they will no longer make the NI savings.

Micro businesses (less than 10 employees) will be excluded from the provisions but this exclusion would not apply to micro businesses that are part of a group structure.

Defining a controlling person

The proposals state that a controlling person will be defined as someone who is able to shape the direction of the organisation having authority or responsibility for directing or controlling the major activities of the engaging organisation during the year. This would be someone who has managerial control over a significant proportion of the organisation’s employees and/or control over a significant proportion of the budget of the organisation. Determining who is a controlling person will likely be the key issue for businesses as this definition is somewhat unclear.

The government will be publishing a response to this consultation and if necessary draft regulations will also be published for comment before implementation in 2013.

Diana Bruce is the senior policy liaison officer for the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals (CIPP).

Tags:

Replies (31)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By M Shapland
27th Jul 2012 09:09

Off Payroll to become on Payroll

Here we go again. And they call it simplification...

How is a business to know that the person who is working on the contract is the controlling person of PSC? They would have to do a company search to identify the main directors/shareholders of the PSC they are contracting with. More red tape and bureaucracy. I can see the clients deducting tax and NIC without doing as a matter of course..

This is utter nonsense.

I always thought that a way to minimise the loss of tax and NIC was to insist on all directors to be subject to the minimum wage.

NIC should also be made cumulative the same as Income tax on to ensure someone who has several small jobs would pay the same amount of NIC on his/her salary that someone who has only one job and the same salary. this would be fairer..

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By dstickl
27th Jul 2012 09:59

@M Shapland: NMW on all directors is indeed "utter nonsense" ...

M Shapland wrote:

...  This is utter nonsense.   

I always thought that a way to minimise the loss of tax and NIC was to insist on all directors to be subject to the minimum wage.   ...  

Hi M Shapland!    IMHO, your suggestion - of insisting that "all directors to be subject to the minimum wage" - is indeed, to use your own words, "utter nonsense", because IMHO some fledgling limited companies would have never got off the ground, with a concomitant loss of Corporation Tax etc to the english economy.   Over2U.

Thanks (1)
Replying to farmergiles65:
By silicondale
27th Jul 2012 14:17

Quite so, dstickl!

dstickl wrote:

M Shapland wrote:

...  This is utter nonsense.   

I always thought that a way to minimise the loss of tax and NIC was to insist on all directors to be subject to the minimum wage.   ...  

Hi M Shapland!    IMHO, your suggestion - of insisting that "all directors to be subject to the minimum wage" - is indeed, to use your own words, "utter nonsense", because IMHO some fledgling limited companies would have never got off the ground, with a concomitant loss of Corporation Tax etc to the english economy.   Over2U.

Furthermore, NMW is based on hours worked. As a director of my own company, I simply do not record hours worked, which vary wildly in any case from one week to the next. Even when working specifically for clients, more often than not this would be on fixed-price contracts where the time is not recorded. When working on my own R&D the company has no income from which to pay me anything, whether or not I record the time spent.

And another thing.... the freelancers targeted by current attention, as well as many IT contractors and professional consultants are paid way in excess of the NMW. In summary, therefore, NMW is completely irrelevant.

As for VAT registration ... sorry, dtsickl - that wouldn't work either. My business is VAT-registered, but I've already explained why NMW couldn't work for me. Whether or not you are VAT-registered is completely irrelevant, if you don't record the hours you work then you can't apply NMW ! Some weeks it's possible that I'm in breach of the Working Time Directive, but it doesn't bother me and nobody (including me) will ever know.

Really I think there are only two ways to get around the problems of IR35. One is to integrate ee's NIC with income tax (hence it would be payable on dividends, and IR35 would be redundant). The other is simply to abolish IR35. Anything else makes tax more complex.

Thanks (2)
Replying to RobertD:
avatar
By adbanks
27th Jul 2012 14:53

Definitions...

silicondale wrote:

One is to integrate ee's NIC with income tax (hence it would be payable on dividends, and IR35 would be redundant).

 

Dividends are already taxed at a separate rate (10% and 32.5%) from employment income, so why would a merger of NI with income tax (on employment income) need to affect dividends?

Let's not enter another IR35 thread when we don't need to...

 

Defining who are Office Holders (now morphing into Controlling Persons) should be a simple enough task... if the person appears on the Org Chart of a company in any form of management position, or is handing out business cards with that company name, then they should be considered to be employees.  And it should be the responsibility of the "employer" to comply.

 

Simples...

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By silicondale
27th Jul 2012 15:21

Yes, I know ...

adbanks wrote:

silicondale wrote:

One is to integrate ee's NIC with income tax (hence it would be payable on dividends, and IR35 would be redundant).

Dividends are already taxed at a separate rate (10% and 32.5%) from employment income, so why would a merger of NI with income tax (on employment income) need to affect dividends?

The only reason that it looks like separate tax rates for dividends is that they come with some fictitious deemed tax already paid. It might be nice to simplify this so that dividends are paid gross and subject to the individual's full marginal income tax liability, but I can't see that happening anytime soon. No, all that you need to do is to cmobine what is now NIC with income tax and apply it across the board, whether it be on employment income tax or tax on dividends. Obviously some political questions to be answered such as how you tax pensioners, currently exempt from NICs - but not for this thread. Ditto, I agree this shouldn't be another IR35 discussion. Problem is that that HMRC misguidance document looks like becoming more centre-stage, as Diana Bruce noted:

...HMRC has worked with external stakeholders to simplify the guidance for IR35 to make it easier to understand, and has also developed business entity tests and example scenarios to demonstrate when and why IR35 applies. Alongside this new guidance HMRC has also made improvements to the way it polices IR35 including strengthening their specialist compliance teams and altering the way they approach investigations in this area.

Of course the so-called "business entity tests" are completely useless for anything except guessing the risk that HMRC will target you for an investigation. They certainly say nothing about whether you are a real business or a disguised employee, which is what IR35 is about. It's a bit of a red herring though.

I agree in general with your comments about defining 'controlling persons' - though having business cards with the engager's company name is not a good test: I have worked as a sub-contractor on consulting jobs where the (larger) lead consulting firm has wanted everyone to use their cards simply to give a seamless face to the end-client: the business card says nothing about the actual business status or working relationship.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By M Shapland
27th Jul 2012 10:49

Off payroll to become on payroll

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

It is well known that most directors of small companies will take a salary up to the Lower earning limit, or  up to Personal Allowance then draw the rest as dividends to avoid paying NI.. this is entirely legal and that is fine. It is also well known and greatly used in practice once the company is well established and successfull. So while there is some truth to your argument lets no hide the real reason why a lot of directors only take very small salaries + dividends.

The new proposals set out above are impractical and unworkable as far as I am concerned and will do more harm than good to businesses. 

Applying the minimum wage would only shift a small amount of the overall remuneration package for directors from dividends to salary a small price to pay I think to stop the kind of complicated scheme the government keeps dreaming up..

Thanks (0)
Replying to runningmate:
avatar
By dstickl
27th Jul 2012 11:33

@M Shapland:How about NMW on all directors of VAT registered ..?

M Shapland wrote:

....    It is also well known and greatly used in practice once the company is well established and successful.    ... 

Hi M Shapland!    Would you agree to a compromise intermediate position of:   NMW on all directors of VAT registered Limited Companies, LLPs, LPs, etcetera?   Over2U.

Thanks (0)
By silicondale
27th Jul 2012 14:06

Guidance has nothing to do with IR35

I agree with M Shapland that the whole thing is half-baked and unworkable.

I have read the so-called HMRC "Guidance" and it says nothing about whether or not you are caught by IR35 - it really only gives guidance on the risk that you might be selected for investigation. If you do the tests and can provide HMRC with the results backed up by evidence, then they promise not to investigate you for a while. Big deal. I ran the test on my own business, which is outside IR35 for all contracts - yet it came up with a 'high-risk' low score. This is because the scoring system (including many of the tests themselves, as well as the score weightings) has nothing at all to do with the legal criteria for determining IR35 status, and says very little about the realities of being in business on your own account.

These tests are currently voluntary - we can ignore the whole nonsensical document if we wish - but it would be very worrying if the government were to use them in any way in new legislation.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
28th Jul 2012 13:58

CIPP's Diana Bruce's sixth paragraph is not quite correct & ...

The commencement of CIPP’s Diana Bruce's sixth paragraph "When IR35 was introduced 10 years ago, it was unusual for a senior/controlling person to be engaged through their own limited company" is not quite correct, as the BBC chief's scandal over John Birt as reported by The Independent on Sunday [28 FEBRUARY 1993] showed, here's a link:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bbc-helps-its-chief-to-avoid-tax-exclu...

... -avoid-tax-exclusive-birts-salary-paid-to-his-private-company-1475816.html 

In particular, TIoS reported in part: "Because celebrities are paid from a variety of sources - books, personal appearances, films and records - they are usually given freelance contracts, as are producers of one-off programmes. But it has now emerged that senior BBC executives, who neither appear in programmes nor produce them, enjoy similar treatment."   And that was about 20 years ago!

So, regarding CIPP’s Diana Bruce's penultimate paragraph, surely her comment of "Determining who is a controlling person will likely be the key issue for businesses as this definition is somewhat unclear" is "utter nonsense" - to quote the words of M Shapland earlier in this thread - regarding posts such as the Deputy Director-General of the BBC, such as John Birt [now enobled as a Labour Lord perhaps?] etc.  

As IR35 hasn't been justified - at least for me - for "Mr Meldrew-like" workers aged over SPA (State Pension Age), why not simplify tax by IR35 abolishment if >SPA?  [As set out today on this link:- 

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/ir35-controlling-persons-rules-s... ]

Thanks (0)
By Marion Hayes
29th Jul 2012 10:47

Confirm please Diana

Am I understanding this correctly - the entity that the 'controlling person' is in control of is the engager organisation - not their own PSC?

And if they fill that description the money paid would be subjected to Tax and NIC by the engager irrespective of who is receiving the money.

Thanks

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ThornyIssues
30th Jul 2012 07:40

Gross misrepresentation

To compare an employee salary with the invoiced amount of a PSC is gross misrepresentation and I'm saddened to see that a member of the profession cannont see this. I suggest Ms Bruce examine her example and produce more "real world" figures.

Secondly, as the vast majority of "[***] on seat" off-payroll persons are supplied via large multi-nat body shops with a charge out rate is £1000 plus per day and where the "[***] on seat"' sees £250 per day, where is the real tax avoidance?

 

Thanks (1)
Replying to RobertD:
avatar
By peterg11
17th Mar 2013 11:40

Gross Misrepresentation - sums are incomplete

ThornyIssues wrote:

To compare an employee salary with the invoiced amount of a PSC is gross misrepresentation and I'm saddened to see that a member of the profession cannont see this. I suggest Ms Bruce examine her example and produce more "real world" figures.

Secondly, as the vast majority of "[***] on seat" off-payroll persons are supplied via large multi-nat body shops with a charge out rate is £1000 plus per day and where the "[***] on seat"' sees £250 per day, where is the real tax avoidance?

 

  I am baffled why the article author misrepresented the total tax paid for the job done.  The employee of the PSC also pays tax and NI so the total tax paid on the 120,000 is significantly more - much more than the corporate employee pays.  If the HMRC are justifying IR35 and chasing "tax avoiders" because of the figures in this article it is no wonder businesses believe HMRC thinking is flawed, and IR35 is unjustified.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By adagen
30th Jul 2012 09:23

Ignoring CT
I find it surprising that, in an article on the balance of tax paid by both companies and individuals, there is no mention of the fact that employing an individual is a cost of doing business, so reduces CT payment by the employing company. It is not an accurate representation to equate the tax paid by the employed individual with the tax paid by the PSC.

The figures only begin to become meaningful if they take into account the reduction in the CT paid by an employer as a a result of training staff, having HR systems and processes, having accounting costs and processes, having advice on these matters, paying various insurances, etc etc. Add this realism to the figures and the mythical tax gap will start to look very different.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
30th Jul 2012 14:37

Media driven Tax issues

I think what HMRC are worried about is the loss of NIC.  AS Adagen mentions above if the Company pays corp tax this is almost the same as basic rate income tax.

Surely HMRC would do better (and raise more revenue) by looking at the largest companies that appear to use offshore-structures to avoid Corp Tax. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By beancounter27
30th Jul 2012 16:30

Simples

Why doesn't the government apply NICs to all dividends paid by Close Companies? It'll catch the people they want to catch, and a few more too, and it would be very simple to implement.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ArsalanShah:
By silicondale
30th Jul 2012 16:58

The close company red herring again

beancounter27 wrote:

Why doesn't the government apply NICs to all dividends paid by Close Companies? It'll catch the people they want to catch, and a few more too, and it would be very simple to implement.

 

Several very good reasons why not.

- The "few more too" would include genuine small startup businesses and such a tax on their dividends would be a disincentive to business angels.

- Maybe simple to implement, but not simple to police. It's simple to circumvent. All you need to do is to get a few friends and neighbours together as small shareholders, and you no longer have a close company.

- Such a rule would create another cliff-edge.

You would avoid such cliff-edges by subsuming employees NIC completely into the income tax system. You would remove the need for IR35 by making the total tax paid on dividends received by individuals the same as if they had drawn the same amount in salary. This would be a rule applying to ALL dividends received by individuals. Why single out micro-companies for punishment? It's perfectly workable. Indeed in the 1970s there was an investment income surcharge - so you actually paid MORE tax on dividends than on earned income.

As for the present problem - surely a very simple solution is just to enforce IR35 on those who are clearly in the role of employees - senior or junior managers, and not even necessarily "controlling persons" - and not forgetting to collect the tax, with penalties, on previous years. Why should they get any sort of amnesty when HMRC gleefully chase IT contractors for their past years' tax and penalties. If HMRC complain that they can't do that (and they've lost the vast majority of tribunal cases on IR35 so far), then that is perhaps the best argument of all simply for abolishing it. A law that can't be enforced is a bad law - and brings the rule of law itself into disrepute.

Thanks (0)
Replying to mparrett:
avatar
By adbanks
31st Jul 2012 14:06

Not so simples

silicondale wrote:
You would avoid such cliff-edges by subsuming employees NIC completely into the income tax system. You would remove the need for IR35 by making the total tax paid on dividends received by individuals the same as if they had drawn the same amount in salary. This would be a rule applying to ALL dividends received by individuals.

So *all* companies now have to have NI details of all of their shareholders?

And how do you account for the various thresholds? Or are you assuming 12% NIC on all dividends, not just on band-earnings?

And should NI on dividends ever come to pass, just wait for the tribunals to fill up with "it wasn't a dividend it was an interest payment" type hearings, as accountants and tax-advisors convolute ever more complex systems to get around the rules.

Your simple solution is far from simple to implement, once you get away from the one-man-band idea.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
By silicondale
31st Jul 2012 15:19

@adbanks - you misunderstand

adbanks wrote:

silicondale wrote:
You would avoid such cliff-edges by subsuming employees NIC completely into the income tax system. You would remove the need for IR35 by making the total tax paid on dividends received by individuals the same as if they had drawn the same amount in salary. This would be a rule applying to ALL dividends received by individuals.

So *all* companies now have to have NI details of all of their shareholders?

And how do you account for the various thresholds? Or are you assuming 12% NIC on all dividends, not just on band-earnings?

And should NI on dividends ever come to pass, just wait for the tribunals to fill up with "it wasn't a dividend it was an interest payment" type hearings, as accountants and tax-advisors convolute ever more complex systems to get around the rules.

Your simple solution is far from simple to implement, once you get away from the one-man-band idea.

You misunderstand my suggestion. If you subsume NIC into income tax, then NO companies would need to keep any NI details - even of their employees. There would no longer be any such thing as NICs. Individuals would be responsible for declaring dividends on their tax returns - just as they do now - and the only difference is that they would have to pay a bit more tax on them. As for thresholds - abolish NICs you abolish NIC thresholds. All you have is income tax bands - and those won't change in principle. You could adjust the levels, to even out the winners and losers a bit if necessary, but overall the system would be both simpler and fairer.

It could be argued that they need something that does the job of the NI number to prove identity and right to work in the UK - but of course the NI number itself doesn't do that job very well because it's too easy to get one. Anyway, that's a different matter altogether. 

As for employER's NICs - these would then become explicitly what they have always been - a payroll tax - and might soon disappear as well, to be replaced by increases in corporation tax, perhaps.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Triggle:
avatar
By adbanks
31st Jul 2012 16:52

Politically unacceptable

Thanks for the clarification.

silicondale wrote:
... the only difference is that they would have to pay a bit more tax on them.

From 20p to 32p... an extra 12p in the pound.

So your idea of "a bit more tax" is to increase the tax by 60% - I'd hate to know what your "a lot more tax" would be :-)

Likewise, you say:

Quote:
overall the system would be both simpler and fairer.

Again, with respect, you seem oblivious of any dividends beyond PSCs (sic), because there are a lot of people (especially pensioners) who rely on their dividend income - they would vehemently reject your assertion that this is "fairer".

Particularly as (currently) the deemed-dividend-tax-credit covers the income tax liability of standard rate taxpayers... suddenly you'd find a lot of people who (a) have to fill in a tax return, and (b) would then have to pay more tax - unless you're advocating increasing the DTC as well, which would defeat the point.

 

Merging NI with PAYE income tax I can fully support... sorting out "disguised employment" I can agree with - but imposing NICs on dividends (howsoever you disguise it) I cannot.

Thanks (0)
Replying to AlexTucker:
By silicondale
31st Jul 2012 17:44

Again you misunderstand.

adbanks wrote:

... From 20p to 32p... an extra 12p in the pound.

So your idea of "a bit more tax" is to increase the tax by 60% - I'd hate to know what your "a lot more tax" would be :-)

No - there's no increase. If they pay 20p IT and12p NIC now, they would pay 32p IT and 0p NIC. Exactly the same. No winners, no losers. Yes pensioners (of whom I am one) could lose out because we don't currently pay NICs - but that is easily remedied for those who would be worst affected by having a seriously progressive age allowance rather than, as this government is doing, getting rid of it.

It's only politically unacceptable if the politicians want to spin it that way. Headline rates, and all that.

adbanks wrote:

Again, with respect, you seem oblivious of any dividends beyond PSCs (sic), because there are a lot of people (especially pensioners) who rely on their dividend income - they would vehemently reject your assertion that this is "fairer".

Not oblivious at all. I also receive dividends from companies other than my own. Again - if you take the poorer pensioners out of tax altogether by having a generous age allowance, any extra tax burden would fall on those who can afford it.

adbanks wrote:

Particularly as (currently) the deemed-dividend-tax-credit covers the income tax liability of standard rate taxpayers... suddenly you'd find a lot of people who (a) have to fill in a tax return, and (b) would then have to pay more tax - unless you're advocating increasing the DTC as well, which would defeat the point.

So collect more tax from companies on the dividends before they pay them! - though keep it simple - not the dreaded "non-corporate dividend tax" that small companies had to struggle with a few years ago.

I think there's an argument not only that everybody should fill in a tax return - but also that they should all be published, as in Sweden. What's wrong with a bit of openness? Simplify the tax system, and the tax return itself becomes much easier for everyone to complete correctly. In fact with RTI it ought to be possible for HMRC to pre-populate most of the boxes for most people. You can have simple AND fair.

Thanks (0)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By adbanks
01st Aug 2012 16:04

IT inc NIC

silicondale wrote:
No - there's no increase. If they pay 20p IT and12p NIC now, they would pay 32p IT and 0p NIC. Exactly the same. No winners, no losers. Yes pensioners (of whom I am one) could lose out because we don't currently pay NICs - but that is easily remedied for those who would be worst affected by having a seriously progressive age allowance rather than, as this government is doing, getting rid of it.

For employment income, you are correct - we pay 20p IT and 12p NIC = 32p

For dividends we pay 20p IT and 0p NIC - so under your proposal (32p) we'd pay 12p more

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
30th Jul 2012 17:03

The real answer

is for the Government to spend less and then it would no need to keep trying new ways of raising tax.  Taxation is always unfair as it falls hardest on those who benefit least from it.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By adagen
30th Jul 2012 19:06

@pauljohnston My point was rather different.

Any sensible government (and any sensible tax gatherer) would be looking at the overall tax take. Currently they are not, and the article above perpetuates this thinking.

One of the errors in the comparison table is the expenses comparison. Take training expenses as an example. A one person company can treat training costs as a cost of doing business so CT is not applied to that amount. The same is true for bigco. In either case, training a person results in a notional loss in the overall tax take - there is NO difference between a PSC and a large employer. The same is true of providing a laptop or running a payroll. The portion of revenue used to finance these costs does not attract CT.

What the writer of the article has done is to include this notional tax loss for a PSC and to ignore that a similar notional tax loss exists for an employee, which clearly invalidates the comparison.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By androo235
31st Jul 2012 15:38

More evidence. Tax system dysfunctional and irreformable.

I refer you to my earlier post.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/ir35-controlling-persons-rules-step-too-far/529737

My comment, which applies to this thread as it did to that, is the last on the first page of comments.

The opening line of the article above is almost comical - I do hope intentionally so, if not it's sad indeed.

"The government has introduced a high number of measures to ensure that the UK tax system becomes a simple and transparent one, explains the CIPP’s Diana Bruce"

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
01st Aug 2012 11:40

@adbanks,@silicondale,Q:ALL pensioners 2 pay more tax & fill...

Hi adbanks and silicondale!     Are you together and severally seriously suggesting:  

(1) ALL pensioners are to pay more tax, by being charged national insurance [even though they've paid NI throughout their working life in the expectation of NOT being charged NI when aged > SPA] on top of the current structure of income tax marginal rates? and

(2) ALL pensioners - including the infirm and those suffering from dementia and worse - should be obliged by law to fill in a tax return and have it published for any immigrant etc to see, even if the tax affairs of some pensioners are so simple that HMRC currently find it unnecessary to demand a tax return?

Do you think that any politician would get any votes for such a "manifesto"?

Over2U.

Thanks (0)
Replying to MM Bookkeeping Services:
By silicondale
01st Aug 2012 12:14

No

dstickl wrote:

Hi adbanks and silicondale!     Are you together and severally seriously suggesting:  

(1) ALL pensioners are to pay more tax, by being charged national insurance [even though they've paid NI throughout their working life in the expectation of NOT being charged NI when aged > SPA] on top of the current structure of income tax marginal rates? and

(2) ALL pensioners - including the infirm and those suffering from dementia and worse - should be obliged by law to fill in a tax return and have it published for any immigrant etc to see, even if the tax affairs of some pensioners are so simple that HMRC currently find it unnecessary to demand a tax return?

Do you think that any politician would get any votes for such a "manifesto"?

Over2U.

Can't speak for adbanks. However, I am not a tax lawyer or an accountant, just a humble entrepreneur - and a pensioner. You surely can't expect me to have all the answers?

However, my answer to (1) is - of course not. There are various ways around this one. Such as - increasing age allowance (rather than abolishing it); having reduced rates of income tax for pensioners above SPA; increasing the State Pension to compensate for the higher tax; and I'm sure there are other simple ways to neutralise any adverse effects of the tax rationalisation.

My answer to (2) is - given simplified tax, you also have simplified tax returns for everyone. However, for those who are unable to complete their tax returns, there's such a thing as power of attorney. OK, I accept that isn't the whole answer. But how does it work in the USA or in Sweden or other countries where everyone must complete a tax return? Why do you think that the UK is a special case? Surely this question has been answered elsewhere? Clearly if someone's tax affairs are simple enough that HMRC has the information to fill in all the relevant boxes, then all it will need is a signature. This could well apply to a huge number of people currently on PAYE, and not just pensioners. Maybe for all these, it isn't necessary explicitly to complete a return - what I'm suggesting is a major tax simplification, after all. However - were you aware that the State pension is paid gross, not net, and so pensioners with additional company or private pensions are likely to have to complete a tax return anyway, in the present system?

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to MM Bookkeeping Services:
avatar
By adbanks
01st Aug 2012 16:00

More tax? No!

dstickl wrote:
Are you together and severally seriously suggesting: 

(1) ALL pensioners are to pay more tax ... and

(2) ALL pensioners should be obliged by law to fill in a tax return

I'm certainly not... I was merely questioning the side effects of silicondale's proposals.

 

The solution to the disguised employer/ee problem is not to extend the scope of NIC (whether overtly or covertly through merger with income tax) to dividends.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
01st Aug 2012 14:29

@silicondale:Wudn't DPA be broken by publishing OAP tax returns?

Hi silicondale!     I'm concerned that not only would the personal Data Protection Act would be broken by publishing full details of the tax returns of Old Age Pensioners, but also that such details could be the basis of a theft etc hit list by those immigrants etc who are in England in order to steal from existing inhabitants.  

For example: Are you aware that some of the metal thefts that cause electricity and railway signalling failures - with concomitant delay for the honest travelling public - are the "work" of some immigrants?

I leave it to others (who are CTA etc qualified day-to-day taxation practitioners - such as "thisistibl" if he's not on holiday) to comment on your other questions, please.

Thanks (0)
By silicondale
01st Aug 2012 14:54

@dstickl - You don't seem to like ...

... immigrants (ALL immigrants? or just MOST immigrants?). I think we have enough home-grown criminals not to be justified in branding "immigrants" as the danger. It's also way off-topic, as also are metal thefts.

As for the Data Protection Act - this is one of those things like "health & safety" or "computer says no" that is always wheeled in as an excuse not to do something that jobsworths don't want to do.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
01st Aug 2012 16:27

@silicondale: What I do not like is immigrant workers coming ...

Hi silicondale!    Let's me give you a clear answer to your first two questions:    What I do not like is immigrant etc workers coming into my home to do cash in hand etc jobs, and then apparently "borrowing" my tools, without returning them.   Apparently I had led them into temptation!

As I thought "Off payroll" was the wording of the present topic, wouldn't you agree that thieves are "Off payroll" anyway, on a wider / panoramic view?

My general view of immigration is that of numbers: I believe that my home country is now too full.  Even the midwives are asking for more resources, because of the increase in births especially in some areas where immigrants settle first!   So contrary to the Labour [e.g. the former Home Secretary Charles Clark who recently indicated in Parliament that "numbers don't matter" which I, as an accountant, find hard to accept] and Lib-Dogmacrats alleged view that all immigration is good because it adds to diversity, IMHO it seems to me that England is now so congested (with concomitant costs) that further incremental immigration should be discouraged.  For example, the recent farce about the water drought indicates that we don't have sufficient water supplies in place in England, without further capital expenditure and concrete pouring in the greenbelt, i.e. further immigration will be a net cost to the tax and bill payers.   And do you want "road pricing"?  Why not have "Queue pricing" at LHR, to speed up the Border Agency passport queues for plutocratic Americans?   After all, UK needs the money that Labour had spent because of the USA's sub-prime problem and it's aftermath!

Regarding your second paragraph, I regret I just do not understand why potential thieves - homegrown or alien - should have the personal data of pensioners in their "target markets" if that's the term they use. I'd be glad to have a rational explanation of why such data should be made available, rather than a dogmacratic one, please.

"And finally" if it weren't so congested, I'd get out more!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
01st Aug 2012 17:40

Lets put things straight

National Insurance is currently paid by today's workers and businesses.  It is a tax which is supposed to cover state pensione etc but is just another tax.

When the country was wealthy and the ratio of workers to pensioners, pensioners did not have to pay unless they were under state pension age.  The country now has financial problems which will get greater as our pensioners get more numerous and older. 

Age allowance only benefitted certain persioners and now the allowance is being phased out.  The personal allowance will be higher than the current age allowance.  I guess to help pay for the extra costs of our pensioners.

Imigration has been used many times to fill vacant positions.  Those from Jamaica came after the second world war.  It was the Labour party's idea that immigrants would vote Labour and so give them a majority.  But this did not work. 

We used to have natural gas and oil in plentiful supplies and used this to boost our living standards rather than save for the future (like the Norweigens are doing now).

So as a country we have to reduce out spending to match our income or increase taxation to make up the shortfall.

Sadly the ideas for the above come from politicians or civil servants the majority of which have never lived in the real world.

So what should be be done imho there show be an informed debate on how to deal with all of the above but there wont be just as there will not be a referandum on Common Market Membership.  In all cases the Politicians are frightened that it wont go their way

Thanks (0)