Rather than call them every month why not add value to your relationship with them. Have targeted e-mails that keep in touch but provide value for the contact.
Now is the ideal time to contact single director companies and suggest the best level of remuneration for them. An e-mail which provides them a choice but tells them that you are helping them save tax will be welcomed. There should be no quibble to a fee increase if you are providing them with this sort of proactive value.
What a brilliant defence for future IR35 cases!
We used the CEST tool to determine status, as advised by HMRC, and came to our decision in an honest and impartial way.
The tool is clearly flawed as even the Government cannot use it correctly.
We did everything we could to comply with the legislation. Not our fault if the tools provided by the Government gave the wrong decision.
They should have made a better tool!
"It is interesting to note that the existence of MOO is not tested at all by the HMRC’s check employment status for tax tool (CEST), which public sector bodies are supposed to use to test whether a contract lies within IR35. HMRC states this is because MOO is assumed to always be present in public sector contracts, so there is no need to test for it."
CEST cannot be used for private sector contracts as it stands as MOO cannot be assumed for these contracts.
Will HMRC rewrite CEST so that it actually does the job it is supposed to, including MOO, or will there another fudge brought in.
In my opinion it will be easy for all private sector contracts to confirm there is no MOO between the parties and therefore any such contract will be outside IR35.
I would like to see HMRC try to tell private companies that they heve to have assume MOO for such contracts
If he wanted revenge, he should have just used the info he had to secretly drop the ex-client in it. Ways and means, people, ways and means!
He could then done for not reporting a money laundering matter quickly enough and possibly be guilty of trying to cover it up.
Out of the frying pan....
In April 2017 the BBC implemented a blanket IR35 decision to treat all contractors as if they were caught. This is because, as far as I can see, they just did not have the time or staff to look at each individual contract and make a decision on the contract as a stand alone contract.
This caused great dismay amongst contractors who effectively forced the BBC to delay implementation of the new system by a month.
In an e-mal to clients of mine the BBC indicated that they would take a soft implementation of the new rules in order that contractors had the opportunity to apply for a LP10 letter. This letter relates to the case of Ian Lorimer. Hall (HMIT) v Lorimer (1993)
If a contractor can produce a LP10 letter from HMRC then the BBC will continue to make payments gross as a contractor.
For details of how to get a LP10 letter contact HMRC here:
Film & Production Unit
Floor 4
Trinity Bridge House
2 Dearmans Place
SALFORD
M3 5BH
So if I were to watch the monthly updates with Ashley (which I do) and attend the free events around the country what extra would I receive for my payment to attend Xerocon each year.
My answers
Rather than call them every month why not add value to your relationship with them. Have targeted e-mails that keep in touch but provide value for the contact.
Now is the ideal time to contact single director companies and suggest the best level of remuneration for them. An e-mail which provides them a choice but tells them that you are helping them save tax will be welcomed. There should be no quibble to a fee increase if you are providing them with this sort of proactive value.
What a brilliant defence for future IR35 cases!
We used the CEST tool to determine status, as advised by HMRC, and came to our decision in an honest and impartial way.
The tool is clearly flawed as even the Government cannot use it correctly.
We did everything we could to comply with the legislation. Not our fault if the tools provided by the Government gave the wrong decision.
They should have made a better tool!
"140,000 contract customers where overcharged a collective £2.4 between 2011 and 2019 as a result of this error. "
I think there may be a typo! £2.40 does not seem to warrant that level of fine!
Not yet.
When driverless cars come in and Uber drops all of its drivers then it will.
At that stage it will no doubt have a plan to get around the VAT "problem".
Correct link:
http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=10740
"It is interesting to note that the existence of MOO is not tested at all by the HMRC’s check employment status for tax tool (CEST), which public sector bodies are supposed to use to test whether a contract lies within IR35. HMRC states this is because MOO is assumed to always be present in public sector contracts, so there is no need to test for it."
from https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/ir35-slam-dunk-win-for-c...
CEST cannot be used for private sector contracts as it stands as MOO cannot be assumed for these contracts.
Will HMRC rewrite CEST so that it actually does the job it is supposed to, including MOO, or will there another fudge brought in.
In my opinion it will be easy for all private sector contracts to confirm there is no MOO between the parties and therefore any such contract will be outside IR35.
I would like to see HMRC try to tell private companies that they heve to have assume MOO for such contracts
He could then done for not reporting a money laundering matter quickly enough and possibly be guilty of trying to cover it up.
Out of the frying pan....
In April 2017 the BBC implemented a blanket IR35 decision to treat all contractors as if they were caught. This is because, as far as I can see, they just did not have the time or staff to look at each individual contract and make a decision on the contract as a stand alone contract.
This caused great dismay amongst contractors who effectively forced the BBC to delay implementation of the new system by a month.
In an e-mal to clients of mine the BBC indicated that they would take a soft implementation of the new rules in order that contractors had the opportunity to apply for a LP10 letter. This letter relates to the case of Ian Lorimer. Hall (HMIT) v Lorimer (1993)
If a contractor can produce a LP10 letter from HMRC then the BBC will continue to make payments gross as a contractor.
For details of how to get a LP10 letter contact HMRC here:
Film & Production Unit
Floor 4
Trinity Bridge House
2 Dearmans Place
SALFORD
M3 5BH
e-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: They do not have a number and do not take calls!
Hi Gary
So if I were to watch the monthly updates with Ashley (which I do) and attend the free events around the country what extra would I receive for my payment to attend Xerocon each year.
Anyone care to explain why Xero feel the need to charge to attend what is in effect a large marketing exercise for their product.
If you want me to use the product then make it easy for me to find out about it and don't make me pay for the privilege!
BTW I am already a Xero user but don't attend XeroCON due to the fact that they charge for me to be there.