HMRC ready to penalise off-payroll mistakes
The arrival of the new tax year signalled the end of HMRC’s relaxed stance on penalties for incorrect IR35 employment assessments and other errors.
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I feel that only our respected legal members can truly address the statement above which makes my blood run cold - that HMRC now see it as part of their remit to:
"question businesses .. on their hiring process for contractors, how they determine employment status and the process for deciding whether to outsource services."
With what authority do they do this?
This is particularly pertinent when the NAO reported that executives managing engagements are struggling to assess employment status (as are of course HMRC, tribunals and Uncle Tom Cobley)!
Since when did you put a supplier on a payroll system? If you put anyone on a payroll system it means you are not sure about their status, and should probably have put them onto payroll at the outset. Come on John, either it is Jill or Joe Bloggs the plumber who is fixing something and will go away when the work is done (brings own kit, etc.) and who goes on purchase ledger, or it is a software person with intimate knowledge of your systems working for you on your system under your control on your premises - who is effectively on a short term employment contract- and who should be on payroll (with all the addtional HR work, pensions and NI costs that entails).
I have clients who used to work for the MOD, who post financial crash were told by MOD HR to form a company and report for work (same desk/same job/same location) on Monday following incorporation. This was done to comply with George Osborne's requirement for all government department to make savings in their budgets. They achieved this by shifting a lot of employees off payroll. I also know the NHS did something similar.
Interestingly HMRC have not gone after any Ministries at Whitehall and dragged them in front of the FTT etc. Different rules for government departments?!
Actually that last sentence isn't true (although I sympathise with the sentiment).
A random selection of headlines in the last 12 months shows:
* Dept for Work & Pensions - in July 2021 DWP was issued with a £87.9m tax bill;
* Home Office - shortly afterwards the HO faced a £29.5m tax bill (with interest) for 'careless' IR35 failings + a £4m penalty;
* HM Courts & Tribunal Service - also then was handed a £12.5m tax bill.
There may be others (unreported or not noticed by me), but the 'interesting' fact is the paucity of detail on these cases - including how little appears to be levied in penalties as opposed to a bill for the back-dated deemed employments.
My bigger surprise (not) is that so far HMRC hasn't charged itself!
I have clients who used to work for the MOD, who post financial crash were told by MOD HR to form a company and report for work (same desk/same job/same location) on Monday following incorporation. This was done to comply with George Osborne's requirement for all government department to make savings in their budgets. They achieved this by shifting a lot of employees off payroll. I also know the NHS did something similar.
Interestingly HMRC have not gone after any Ministries at Whitehall and dragged them in front of the FTT etc. Different rules for government departments?!
This just illustrates the level of thinking at Government level.
The way to cut down on Government spending is to reduce Government income.
"Lions led by donkeys" applies just as much today as it did 100 years ago but nowadays it's in the financial department.
Is it just me who hates the insidious wording "off payroll"?
If it ain't an employee it ought not be on your payroll.
No you're not on your own ... although it's equalled in my pantheon of hatred of HMRC's mangling of our language by many others - such as 'payrolling benefits'.
Nouns vs verbs, anyone?