You might also be interested in
Replies (19)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
HMRC. Hoisted by their own petard!
Precisely the thought that went through my mind.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch...
"“The existence of the limited company in my understanding gives no protection to the engager over worker or employment rights.”"
It did in the case of J.M.Williams v's Hewlett Packard, heard at the EAT in December 2002. This case set a precedent and so I guess clients could use the judgement to protect their position, which is exactly why they have always insisted on engaging individuals in this way. However, this case clearly muddies the waters further and is a wake up call to clients and HMRC alike.
I don't know if this is true or not but someone told me that before petard came to mean a bomb or explosive device, it was Old French for a fart.
I don't know if this is true or not but someone told me that before petard came to mean a bomb or explosive device, it was Old French for a fart.
It is indeed derived from old french word meaning breaking wind and it did eventually get used to mean fireworks and explosion.
Remember the movie "Le Petomane" with Leonard Rossiter ?
Anyone with a basic knowledge of French or French bangers (fireworks not sausages) will know its correct meaning.
Maybe Susan Winchester should now go back and have another go at HMRC for the same pension rights as an HMRC employee?
Given that not all of the respondents were identified, I guess there was some horse trading to avoid this. Without seeming to be critical, if as the appellant declared, that the issue was one of principle, the settlement amount would not have encouraged me in any way to settle out of court. The whole issue is far too important than that.
Is that why HMRC settled out of Court (on exactly the terms the taxpayer was arguing for).
So no legal precedent.
That way HMRC success statistics appear to remain robust and can be used to make other taxpayers think that there no point in fighting HMRC.
This is how HMRC now operates.
The petard was an explosive device used to breach the walls/gates of cities during medieval sieges. Carried by some willing(?) peasant, the device was placed by hand at the bottom of the wall. Often the fuse burned through before he got there.... boom!
This would all be sorted out if sense prevailed.
When a hirer hires somebody and treats them like an employee, they get an employee - no matter how many other entities there are in the way between the master and the servant.
Sort that out in employment law, and the tax code follows - regardless of who runs the payroll.
Why do they need a marketing consultant? This would suggest that there is a choice in being a customer of HMRC.
customers have the right to take their custom elsewhere. Not sure where HMRC's customers could take their custom!
As customers we can choose to move to another tax jurisdiction, but not sure HMRC are marketing how wonderful it is to be taxed in the UK rather than going abroad!
"As customers we can choose to move to another tax jurisdiction"
Yes, and many have by using dubious off shore facilities, which HMRC are also targeting. Granted, a move to Eire might prove to be profitable also.