Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Adrian Chiles at the BAFTA's in April 2009.
Creative-Commons_Adrian-ChilesDamien Everett
Adrian Chiles photographed at the BAFTA's in April 2009.

IR35: Adrian Chiles won showdown with HMRC

by

Sports broadcaster and former One Show presenter Adrian Chiles is the latest TV and radio presenter to face HMRC in the tax tribunal over IR35. Rebecca Seeley Harris reports on the outcome.

15th Feb 2022
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Adrain Chiles started working for the BBC as a journalist in 1992. In 1996 the BBC required him to cease his employment and continue providing those services through what has become known as a personal service company. He set up Basic Broadcasting Ltd (BBL) for that purpose.

During the tax years covering 6 April 2012 to 5 April 2017 BBL provided Chiles’s services under two ITV contracts and three BBC contracts in addition to other work for other parties. HMRC issued determinations for income tax and NICs to BBL for those tax years amounting to £1,249,433 and £460,739 respectively.

Hypothetical contracts

When the IR35 intermediaries legislation comes into play, the tribunal is required to consider the hypothetical contract, in this case, between BBL and the BBC and ITV. The question before the tribunal was whether the services provided by Chiles were provided under contracts directly between ITV/BBC and the sportscaster. If so, would Chiles be regarded for income tax purposes as an employee of ITV/BBC?”

No stay

In November 2021, BBL applied for disclosure of material in relation to IR35 decisions concerning television and radio presenters currently on appeal to the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, but HMRC refused. That stance was surprising because both Kickabout Productions vs HMRC (concerning radio presenter Paul Hawksbee) and HMRC v. Atholl House (concerning TV presenter Kaye Adams) were appealed and were being heard in the Court of Appeal in the last two weeks.

Mutuality of obligations

The tribunal considered that there was sufficient mutuality of obligations in relation to all the hypothetical contracts and a sufficient framework of control to establish that Chiles would be performing his services as an employee.

Although the tribunal found that the broadcasters do have a sufficient measure of control to establish that there is a case for a contract of employment, the tribunal did not consider the extent of the broadcasters’ control, in either case, was a compelling factor.

In business on his own account

In the tribunal’s view, the most significant factor that might displace the prima facie case that Chiles was an employee is whether he was “in business on his own account”. This is the same approach taken by the Upper Tribunal in the Atholl House case and in other cases. It involves a value judgment and will depend on various factors which will carry different weight in the overall analysis.

It was agreed that for the other work Chiles undertook he was in business on his own account, albeit through BBL but it remained to be proven that the ITV and BBC contracts were contracts of employment separate to that business.

The factors that confirmed Chiles was in business on his own account included the number of clients he worked for and commercial projects he took on that did not bear fruit. Chiles also paid 15% of his income to his management company Avalon to advance his career and reputation.

Providing equipment

Chiles did considerable research and provided some equipment but, HMRC argued that he was an integral part of the business of ITV and BBC. The tribunal thought otherwise. The judges considered that he may have been an integral part of the programme, but not their businesses.

No substitution

HMRC also placed reliance on the absence of substitution. Both ITV and BBC contracts specifically prevented Chiles from providing a substitute. The tribunal thought that the absence of rights to provide a substitute does not indicate that these contracts were outside of Chiles’s established business activities.

Looking at the whole picture…

Standing back and looking at the whole picture, the tribunal considered that the hypothetical contracts were part of Chiles’s business and that the IR35 legislation did not apply.

This is a very thorough judgment for a first-tier case, but at this level, it does not set a precedent. It is highly likely that HMRC will appeal.

Replies (51)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
15th Feb 2022 19:24

If only IR35 could be understood by all concerned
HMRC have limitless opportunity and resource to appeal all the way up, that ordinary taxpayers are unlikely to have.

Thanks (15)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
15th Feb 2022 20:04

If only IR35 could be understood by HMRC ... that would be a start!

Thanks (18)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By NeilW
16th Feb 2022 09:43

If only IR35 could be scrapped and replaced with Employment law whereby if a firm hires in the manner of an employee, they get an employee - no matter how many middlemen are in the way.

That would solve the problem for everybody - from contractors to lowly temps and Uber drivers.

All of this comes about because of attempts at Employment Law avoidance, which is never meaningfully addressed.

Thanks (11)
Replying to NeilW:
avatar
By vstrad
16th Feb 2022 10:03

I think you'll find it's tax law, not employment law, that Chiles and others are arguing with HMRC about. And it will go on until there is a single definition of employment that applies across all areas of the law.

Thanks (3)
Replying to vstrad:
avatar
By C Graham
16th Feb 2022 10:38

But it's the fact employment law that protects normal 'payroll' employees that makes IR35 so wrong. Because the contractor inside IR35 could never claim unfair dismissal or take SMP or paid holiday. The contractor is not protected at all within the 'disguised employment'. Which really indicates that it is not disguised at all and is differentiated to the status of a payroll employee.

Thanks (7)
avatar
By mkowl
16th Feb 2022 09:41

If only the BBC were taken for task for pushing not just presenters but technical staff into providing services via ltd companies then running away from any responsibility

I went to see Pointless being filmed a few years back now and the accountants eye spotted the Registered Office board on the way in and there must have been over 200 companies for the tech staff linked to that address

Thanks (10)
Replying to mkowl:
avatar
By C Graham
16th Feb 2022 10:27

Exactly - it was set up to make sure the BBC did not have to pay sick leave or SMP or paid holiday/pension etc. The contractor loses both ways through IR35 - no employment rights from the 'employer' but is still said to be employed and subject to the NI/tax at source.

Aside from obligations, the simple end test should be whether a contractor within IR35 enjoys exactly the same rights as other employees in the company, eg, could take the employer to court using employment law if required.
And cannot be held personally liable for the quality of services provided in the term of 'employment' (ie they operate under the 'employer' PI).

If not they are outside of employment and IR35 and the PSC is the employer with responsibility for PI.

Much of contemporary business operates through requiring skills specific to a project and employers just do not need someone taking paid leave or smp. Contracts suit employers and those PSCs are providing work for accountants and bookkeepers too.

And as it becomes harder to get the skilled workers then companies will not be able to fill vacancies because they can no longer resource contractors - many gave up and had to take employment roles. Which means that remote workers outside the UK are now being resourced (and I don't mean complete outsourcing to India etc )- just individuals who have been identified for personal skills outside the UK so are not even paying into the UK tax system. EORs are getting more popular as companies need to support their workforce beyond the UK tax domain.

HMRC seems totally blind to the rules it created even though the whole thing is a charade. Good decision on the tribunal at least. Maybe one day they will actually scrap it because it has no place in the 21st century. Send it the same way as the BBC tv licence!

Thanks (3)
Stuart Walker Yellow Tomato Copy
By winton50
16th Feb 2022 09:44

In this judgement we have the tribunal taking into account the number of clients that Chiles works for and yet HMRC specifically make mention of the fact that just having multiple clients does not indicate an ability to be outside IR35.

As previous commenters have said, it would be handy to have understandable rules that are applied consistently but I guess that is asking too much these days.

I wonder whether an ordinary member of the public would receive the same access to justice as a well-known TV celebrity. I's guessing not.

Thanks (4)
Replying to winton50:
avatar
By nick farrow
16th Feb 2022 10:15

I think the number of clients is a reference to the Lorimer case where sheer number of clients helped established his s/e status and gave rise to Lorimer letters status letters issued by HMRC and used in film& TV sector

Thanks (0)
Replying to winton50:
avatar
By Red1960
16th Feb 2022 10:31

"As previous commenters have said, it would be handy to have understandable rules that are applied consistently but I guess that is asking too much these days."

You should be careful what you wish for... you might get it.

Those rules would be drafted by HMRC to meet their agenda not to be fair or objective. It would be the larger corporate "influencers" who would have all the input on those rules not the smaller businesses that compromise the larger element of the freelancing sector.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 09:56

If only HMRC kept their noses out of employment status we wouldn't have all this mess. Don't forget different judges will view things in different ways. Whatever they do with IR35 there will always be controversy and it's getting worse.

Thanks (3)
By Richard Price
16th Feb 2022 09:57

I'm really pleased for Adrian. HMRC should just let the past go with regard to IR35. They have got such a lot of work to do in so many other areas. It's not like Adrian wasn't paying tax - he was, and as far as we can tell he was pushed down the route of working through a PSC. And could he reasonably be expected to be able to assess and implement legislation that is only now being clarified in court. Just consider the costs to him in stress and legal fees over the term of this disgraceful process pursued by HMRC. Should someone point out they might be best trying to pursue the £4.3 billion pounds fraudulently lost through the covid measures - by actual criminals. Or, they could start answering the phone in a timely manner to actual tax payers. I wonder how much the legal costs were for pursuing Adrian - how many tax technicians would that have serviced?

Thanks (26)
Replying to Richard Price:
avatar
By richards1
16th Feb 2022 10:03

So the real test is what was he paid and what tax he paid. If that was disclosed we could all see wether this was a scam or wether he paid similar tax to a PAYE person on similar income.
If that's not done there will always be a whiff about it.

Thanks (1)
Replying to richards1:
avatar
By cereus77
16th Feb 2022 10:49

This is how HMRC think. They cannot see beyond the numbers and a significant number they seem to include in all their calculations regarding IR35 is employers NICs - a nice fat 13.8% across virtually all the income.

A high earner like Chiles is likely to have paid more overall tax than an employee on similar remuneration due to the dividend tax being uncapped compared to employees NICs - currently only uncapped at 2%.

But not when you include employers NICs.

Whether it is fair to include employers NICs in the calculation and attempt to recover those from the employee I doubt. It seems inequitable to me and very tied up with the actual nature of the relationship between worker and client. All these situations where HMRC are currently trying to treat independents as employees have in common the fact that HMRC are not interested in all the other benefits of actual employment v freelancing which freelancers do not receive - paid holidays, health care, pension schemes, job security etc.

Employers on the other hand regard saving all those costs, not paying employers NICs and having the freedom to use or lose a freelancer when they wish as big benefits which can result in considerable savings and flexibility for their business.

I think it’s time for HMRC to recognise that with the dividend tax they have already clawed back all that is reasonable from freelancers. They should exclude employers NICs from their calculations of extra tax they might “recover” with IR35 as these are only fairly paid as part of a benefits and certainty package which is what the reasonable man or woman in the street understands to constitute employment.

In fact rather than rolling out these ridiculous and complicated IR35 off payroll rules which mean independents can’t claim their travelling expenses or spread the income from good years over bad; I’m minded that HMRC should have scrapped IR35 altogether. It’s unfair, costly to comply with and police, and an unnecessary distraction for HMRC from the important business of going after those who fraudulently evade taxation.

Thanks (11)
Replying to cereus77:
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 11:10

HMRC will always go after the (what they think are) easy targets. They haven't got the expertise to go after the real criminals and fraudsters.

Thanks (10)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By Red1960
16th Feb 2022 12:16

I think they have both in abundance to be honest and what they lack is the will power or even intent to deal with it.

I have to wonder why we have to have IR35 or even MTD and the tax gap when HMRC are completely oblivious to that most egregious of individuals the serial phoenixer who moves from one business to another for no reason other than to avoid paying substantial amounts of tax hiding behind limited liability and leaving a trail of tax (and other) debts in their wake to the value of tens, hundreds and even millions of pounds.

This is such a common and, I have to say, obvious and readily identifiable ploy that serious questions must be asked of HMRC as to why they do so little if anything to combat it or to recover the vast sums lost to the exchequer as a result.

Instead here we are... MTD and the billions to be made from it.

Thanks (5)
Replying to Red1960:
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 12:27

The one thing I will say in HMRC corner is that they have gone from an unjoined up, fragmented disorganisation to what is thought (by HMRC) to be the most advanced digital tax system in the world, alleviating the need for annual returns, in a few years. What could possibly go wrong and what gets left undone?

Thanks (1)
Replying to cereus77:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
16th Feb 2022 11:15

Looking at his accounts he seems to rely on director loans (rather than dividends) to a very large extent.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By cereus77
16th Feb 2022 16:27

Ah I haven’t seen his accounts. I see that approach as dubious at best. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cereus77:
avatar
By flightdeck
16th Feb 2022 12:19

Yes, good point about lost employer's NI.

Why don't HMRC go after BBC (ITV et) in parallel for this lost income?

Thanks (1)
Replying to cereus77:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
16th Feb 2022 20:26

That’s a very good summary of where we are, thank you

Thanks (1)
Ivor Windybottom
By Ivor Windybottom
16th Feb 2022 10:03

I would like to see this turned into a BBC or ITV gameshow.

We could then all vote on the employment status for various workers.

"I'm Not An Employee, Get Me Out Of Here" (TM)

Thanks (16)
Replying to Ivor Windybottom:
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 10:07

One of the wittiest responses I've seen for a long time.

Thanks (3)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By C Graham
16th Feb 2022 10:31

haha yes second that - funny. And probably more entertaining than the original

Thanks (2)
Replying to Ivor Windybottom:
avatar
By flightdeck
16th Feb 2022 12:24

Excellent idea! If the players have to explain their reasoning it would lay bare all see the inconsistency, convolutions and unconsidered edge-cases.

Kind of like a retrospective requirements gathering stage ...

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
16th Feb 2022 10:29

Well done to Aweb for stealing a march over its competitors with this story. (I learned a lot, especially about certain rhyming slang.)

Thanks (3)
avatar
By johnfrancis
16th Feb 2022 10:30

I'm all in favour of this result, and thank you for sharing it with us, Rebecca.

I cannot help wondering what a less prominent 'thought leader' might do. Perhaps he or she might offer corrective guidance to people who've had the police on their doorstep suggesting that they are 'here to check your thinking'.

Just a thought!

Thanks (4)
Replying to johnfrancis:
Rebecca Seeley Harris
By Rebecca Seeley Harris
16th Feb 2022 11:14

Genuinely LOL! Perhaps you should seek advice from a less prominent thought leader if you can get help with your 'helpless wondering' :-)

Thanks (3)
Replying to seeleyharris:
avatar
By dstickl
16th Feb 2022 20:59

Many thanks for this, RSH, and sorry if I've missed it BUT could you please set out a webpage link to the court/tribunal report for me?
Thanks in advance ...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mhkay
16th Feb 2022 10:57

It's completely absurd that the amount of tax you pay should depend on these technical quibbles. Employment law needs a thorough overhaul to bring it into the 21st century.

Thanks (9)
avatar
By Open all hours
16th Feb 2022 11:18

HMRC V BBC

A show that could run and run.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Open all hours:
avatar
By dstickl
16th Feb 2022 11:43

Thank you, OAH, for reminding me of an exclusive report in The Independent on Sunday of 28 February 1993 by Chris Blackhurst:
QUOTE
JOHN BIRT, the new Director-General of the BBC, has avoided tax by being paid as a freelance consultant - despite being a full-time employee of the Corporation. Instead of paying tax on his BBC salary, he has been taxed on whatever he chooses to pay himself from his private company.
According to the BBC, details of Mr Birt's pay as Director-General have still to be finalised. He took over his new job at Christmas instead of next month, as planned. But for six years as Deputy Director-General he was paid through his private company.
Mr Birt, 48, joined the BBC as Deputy Director-General from London Weekend Television in 1987. Famed for a meticulous and analytical approach, he aroused controversy by streamlining BBC News and Current Affairs. He is expected to remain Director-General until the BBC's charter comes up for renewal in 1996.
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.
Documents filed at Companies House show that, as Deputy Director-General, Mr Birt was paid gross by the BBC and then claimed a long list of items against tax, including designer suits and visits to the theatre.
Mr Birt has a private company, John Birt Productions Limited. It was formed in 1980 and has two shareholders: himself and his wife, Jane, a painter. The company gives its principal activity as 'providing consultancy services in the field of theatres and television'. Its address is Mr Birt's home in south-west London. He does not list the company in his Who's Who entry.
In the year ending 31 August 1991 John Birt Limited reported a turnover of pounds 163,141. By far the bulk of this was Mr Birt's salary as Deputy Director-General. The BBC does not disclose the salaries of its senior executives, but its latest annual report said that the highest-paid member of the Board of Management - presumably Michael Checkland, the Director-General - earned pounds 149,148. The next highest - presumably Mr Birt - received between pounds 135,000 and pounds 140,000.
Set against the turnover of John Birt Limited are 'administration expenses'. These include:
Pounds Secretarial assistant. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15,000 Wardrobe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,666 Travel, accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,791 Lighting and heating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,127 Motor expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,612 Telephone and postage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,501 Books and journals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,350 Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,366 Sundry expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989 Cleaning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .920 Theatre visits/research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Depreciation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300
The expenses also include payment of salaries to Mr Birt and his wife of pounds 59,000 and pounds 14,000 respectively, a pounds 36,167 contribution to his private pension plan, pounds 7,604 National Insurance contributions and pounds 3,100 accountancy fees.
After deducting the pounds 159,174 in expenses from turnover, the profit of John Birt Limited was pounds 3,967. The company paid no corporation tax on the profit, however, because of the deduction of capital allowances and losses carried over from previous years.
Instead of paying tax on his six-figure BBC salary under PAYE, Mr Birt paid tax only on the salary he awarded himself as a director of his company, pounds 59,000.
Barry Kernon of Kernon & Co, an accountancy firm that acts for many writers and broadcasters, said: 'It is a little unusual for the earnings of an individual in a senior managerial position in a corporation to be paid through a company he controls. In the normal way, I would expect this to be treated as a salary and for this to be taxed under PAYE.'
A BBC source said that by being paid this way, Mr Birt would save the BBC from paying National Insurance on his salary. He added: 'All these efficiency measures to which we are submitting ourselves are being driven by him. As you can see, he has a certain amount of expertise in this area.'
An Inland Revenue spokeswoman said she could not comment about an individual's tax affairs, but the BBC was treated like any other employer. 'Whether you are self-employed or PAYE is a matter of fact and that is all,' she said.
The Inland Revenue, she explained, has criteria for determining whether people can be classed as self-employed or as employees. People are generally judged to be self-employed if they risk their own money in the business; if they are free to hire other people; and if they have the final say in how the business is run. Employees are generally judged to be people who have to do the work rather than hire someone else to do it for them; who work set hours and at the premises of the person or organisation they are working for.
Mr Birt would not speak directly, but a BBC spokesman said: 'Arrangements of this kind are not unusual in the broadcasting and entertainment industry, and John Birt has been either a freelance or has contracted his services through his own company on fixed-term contracts for over 20 years. The same contractual arrangements that operated when he was director of programmes at LWT applied when he joined the BBC as Deputy Director-General.'
ENDQUOTE.

Thanks (7)
Replying to dstickl:
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 11:54

"It is a matter of fact". Says it all. Now look where we are because HMRC now say facts are for them to decide not the parties involved.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By dstickl
16th Feb 2022 17:47

I, too, found that February 1993 (some 29 years ago!) hilarious, because it stated:
An Inland Revenue spokeswoman said she could not comment about an individual's tax affairs, but the BBC was treated like any other employer. 'Whether you are self-employed or PAYE is a matter of fact and that is all,' she said.

Which leads to this suggestion: perhaps it's time - high time - for HMRC to wake up out of its IR35 drugged slumbers, get up, smell the SME etc coffee, and replace IR35 with a new scheme for increasing the taxation of dividends issued by close companies, in my opinion, jj.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By nick farrow
16th Feb 2022 11:38

one of the "interesting" side effects of this employment status debate is the issue of talent/management agents commission. My understanding following the Richard & Judy case is that agents commission (typically ranging from 10 to 15%) is only deductible from deemed employment income if the individual is an entertainer as opposed to say for example a news reader. So the deductibility of agents commission is likely to be a bigger issue than travel expenses

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nick farrow
16th Feb 2022 11:38

one of the "interesting" side effects of this employment status debate is the issue of talent/management agents commission. My understanding following the Richard & Judy case is that agents commission (typically ranging from 10 to 15%) is only deductible from deemed employment income if the individual is an entertainer as opposed to say for example a news reader. So the deductibility of agents commission is likely to be a bigger issue than travel expenses

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nick farrow
16th Feb 2022 11:38

one of the "interesting" side effects of this employment status debate is the issue of talent/management agents commission. My understanding following the Richard & Judy case is that agents commission (typically ranging from 10 to 15%) is only deductible from deemed employment income if the individual is an entertainer as opposed to say for example a news reader. So the deductibility of agents commission is likely to be a bigger issue than travel expenses

Thanks (0)
Replying to nick farrow:
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 11:48

Nick slide a key down your back.

Thanks (2)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By nick farrow
16th Feb 2022 11:58

sorry i don't know how that happened

Thanks (2)
Replying to nick farrow:
avatar
By johnjenkins
16th Feb 2022 12:10

When you post the first time, give it some time to go through.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By rememberscarborough
16th Feb 2022 12:05

Our tax system is shot at and completely unfit for purpose!!

If the last two years have taught us anything it's that we all want the support of the state so we need to contribute. Everyone should be paid through the PAYE system and contribute NI accordingly because they all want access to the NHS etc.

The fact that we have so many different types of tax is just a way for the "rich" to legally evade paying their fair share. Don't expect anything to change because our tax system is morally bankrupt.

Thanks (2)
Replying to rememberscarborough:
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
16th Feb 2022 14:52

How exactly do you think that system of everyone being under PAYE would work?

self employed already pay NIC...

Company directors pay PAYE/NIC.

The 'rich' already pay the vast majority of taxes as well as providing the most jobs etc. The 'rich' already pay at much higher rates. Want a 'fair' tax system? then eliminate all reliefs and allowances and NIC etc and benefits and have one uniform rate applied to all sources of income. That would be 'fair' (but it wouldn't work in practice).

It seems the left define 'fair' as meaning tax some people at a much higher rate than others...

Thanks (1)
Replying to rememberscarborough:
avatar
By C Graham
17th Feb 2022 10:25

absolutely not true. We do not ALL want to reply on state handouts. So you speak for yourself. It's the welfare system that is abused and is regressive. People who find they are better off on benefits than working.

Why inflate the costs to employers for providing employment by increasing NIC.

Why penalise employers for provided private healthcare (ie treating it as a bik ) when it can alleviate the burden on the NHS for those who HAVE to rely on it. Employers are already contributing to the pension scheme to lessen the burden of an aging population.

When you refer to the 'rich' RScarborough - what sort of income are you talking about. You cannot legally evade - that is a contradiction. Tax evasion is against the law. What you refer to tax avoidance which is above board and most accountants will make their money advising clients on reducing their tax liability. Or to put it another way, not to pay any more tax than they need to. That is not a rule for the 'rich' - it applies to everyone.

PAYE does not work for freelancers or sold traders - it costs to administrate and they often have to wait to be paid by customers having covered cost of materials and expenses. Same for PSCs. No regular income. Plus tax codes are frequently wrong.

The last two years has shown that it was rushed through grants and furlough that was a big problem - but it did keep many small businesses afloat to survive and grow. History has shown that if you increase the taxes on HNWI they simply go into tax exile and then you lose their contribution completely. Look at France and the super tax - it was a failure. The main contributors all abandoned the country. So they had to scrap it.

What is the incentive to build an economy if you bite the hand that feeds it. It is the reduced reliance on support of the state that is critical unless you want to turn the UK into 60s USSR. And if you think that was a good and fair system how come it increased the divide between the poorest and richest. Same with China.

IR35 was a terrible idea to try and extract more NIC but it is deeply flawed which is reflected in the number of costly legal cases. Not only that but PSC directors CANNOT even use the main facilities it funds - SMP, sick pay, social benefits, employment support etc.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By geoffmw1
16th Feb 2022 17:21

I assume that BBL charged the clients VAT in which case there is no argument other than that BBL is a business and not an employee

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dmmarler
17th Feb 2022 08:42

The situation is a nonsense. IR35 is the result of National Insurance planning moves to reduce employers' and employees' tax liabiities, and is a sticking plaster. The tax system should be simplified to eliminate NI altogther - and save the costs of all the HMRC staff who administer it. Employment law should recognise the complexities of modern employment/self employment and be revised to protect parties accordingly, encouraging good employment practices to make the UK more efficient and productive.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By tedbuck
17th Feb 2022 11:19

A lot of very interesting comment there a lot of which I agree.

The underlying problem though is unaddressed. Why does HMG need so much money in the first place?

The answer is that Government and the Civil Service which purportedly serves it are all grotesquely inefficient and not accountable for what they do.

Hence the waste on PPE, the NHS, HMRC's MTD nonsense, tax cases which cost a fortune and go nowhere, all the bureaucracy invented in the last few years, GDPR (new income stream for HMG). AML (waste time sending info to the NCA for them to ignore) and so on and so on. Remember the PFI - allow civil servants to enter into contracts that were ridiculous then and we are still paying for now (mainly NHS again, of course)

They need to get people in the CS who understand business not recruits from University who understand SFA about the real world. The same applies to politics.

Civil Service is no longer serving but trying to be the master and the state and the Government are now a part of the Civil Service Control picture.

What really irritates me is that we are paying through the nose for this shambles and certainly don't get value for money.

Thanks (3)
Replying to tedbuck:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
17th Feb 2022 12:04

That was pretty much Dominic Cummings' take on things and look what happened to him, so don't expect any improvement to any of that soon.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By C Graham
17th Feb 2022 12:26

agree but in draining the swamp Cummings turned into one of them with his eyesight test. Obviously couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Agutter Accounts
21st Feb 2022 13:26

There's an overlap here between employment law and tax law.

From an employment point of view it goes to the heart of such things as sick pay, holiday pay and qualification for redundancy pay.

As regards tax law, it impacts on such things employer liability for NI, and the way the individual is taxed and liability for NI.

Like too much else on our tax system, the situation is both contradictory and a complete mess.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Agutter Accounts:
avatar
By johnjenkins
21st Feb 2022 14:13

Flip me (I wanted to say something else) great minds think alike. I will give you a "thanks" (genuine)

Thanks (0)

Pages