Member Since: 17th Nov 2011
8th Jun 2020
If it was for business purposes to suss out a competitor, you'd expect to see written reports setting out lessons learned. Are there any?
2nd Sep 2019
"Whether a contract falls within the IR35 legislation is a point of fact"
Quite so. But as we have seen in the courts, HMRC can look at the facts and come to a different conclusion to the individual concerned, and off to the courts we go.
You write as if all contracts come with a 'yes' or 'no' stamp on them, with no possibility of the wrong stamp having been applied and making it easy and obvious which ones are within IR35 and which not.
If that were the case HMRC would never have lost a single IR35 case as they would only take those involving 'yes' stamps where the individual had ignored the stamp.
That's clearly not the case.
The point is that for those cases where there's a grey area, the individual would have been prepared to take the risk of enquiry. A large business, with dozens or hundreds of potential cases has two choices. Spend hours reviewing each case (and take the risk of doing this and still coming to a conclusion HMRC subsequently disagree with) or just blanket call them as falling within IR35.
12th Aug 2019
Yep. BIM 41800 et seq.
"...if the character in the recipient’s hands is that of a payment made in order that the money may be used in the recipient’s business, to supplement trading or other business receipts and to enable the recipient to carry on business, or otherwise to preserve and maintain trading stability and solvency, then it will be a taxable trading receipt (Smart v Lincolnshire Sugar Co Ltd  20TC643 at 670; British Commonwealth International Newsfilm Agency Ltd v Mahany  40TC550 at 578 and 582);" BIM41810
24th Jul 2019
Which country is he resident it?
Without knowing that it's pretty much guess work or generalities, neither of which make for good tax advice.
2nd Nov 2016
I'm baffled how this will work in practice.
Uber driver says "I'm available for work".
Uber says "There are no passengers at the moment".
Uber driver says "tough, you still owe me £7.20 an hour"?
The case was funded by the GMB and I suspect this was more an 'anti-Uber' thing than any concern for those who work with Uber.
Meantime, it's amazing how some supposed 'experts' made wide sweeping 'knowledgeable' pronouncements about what this meant without even realising that there was an interim 'worker' status between employee and self-employed.
26th May 2016
You seem to have described the skill-set to become a tax campaigner and economics commentator. Why, I suspect that might even get you a mickey-mouse professorial title.
20th Apr 2016
HMRC Enquiry Manuals says.....
Read EM3811 et seq
11th Apr 2016
The starting point for this is probably HMRC's Statutory Residence Test booklet (105 pages) and then the Residence, Domicile and Remittances Manual (many thousands of paragraphs).
Even then you might not get an answer.
This is clearly of huge importance to you. Why not pay for some proper advice?
3rd Mar 2016
Not seen as 'good law'?
HMRC still see it as applicable - see CA23525.
Given what seems to be a one man company I think there's a possibility that HMRC could mount a challenge. Is it W&E?
28th Jan 2016
As the howls of anger grow ever louder in the media and among MPs that Facebook, Google and Amazon (among others) are definitely getting away with something and definitely guilty of something and need to be punished, it's worth remembering that back in 17th century Salem there were howls of anger as it was PROVED in court that certain people were witches and they were put the death.
Most of the media and most MPs seem to have as firm a grasp of tax law as the prosecutors in Salem did of witchcraft.