HMRC has lost the (building) plot: Part one

Kashflow logo
Share this content

Keith Gordon casts a critical eye over HMRC’s latest consultation document relating to the status of workers in the construction industry.

Under new HMRC proposals, self-employed workers will be classed as employees for tax and national insurance purposes, unless can they can demonstrate that at least one statutory ‘badge’ of employment is met. The current proposals do not extend to all workers, merely those in the construction industry – although one wonders whether there are plans to extend them to other types of worker in due course.

The proposed statutory tests are:

  • The worker provides plant and machinery for the purposes of the task being carried out, excluding such tools that it is normal for a person in the industry to provide f...

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB.co.uk members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register. Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

About Keith Gordon

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
26th Aug 2009 14:07

False self-employment
It was interesting to see the reference to self-employed Barristers. A number of years ago I prepared tax returns for a self-employed Barrister. The local tax inspector opened an enquiry proposing that said Barrister should be classified as employed as he was on a fixed two year contract with one "engager". The enquiry was promptly closed by the inspector with no amendment to the tax return when it was suggested that the determination of status should be taken up with the "engager" who happened to be HM Treasury. Should not one rule aply to all?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Anonymous
26th Aug 2009 15:14

HMRC has lost the (building) plot, part one
Agree with comments in article.

But, the main point about the Consultation Document is HMRC state that the cost of compliance was/is not viable, hence the quid pro quo simple "legislation". This may turn out to be an expensive lemon.

Thanks (0)