No. I doubt if it will happen suddenly. I predict a protracted decline. As it shrinks, it will be forced to cut back and cut back, and the people will get older and older and more out of touch, but there is nothing waiting in the wings to replace it, so the loyal few will keep a shell going for years. This will of course delay any regeneration, as while there is anything there there will be no incentive for the terrific effort it would take to start something like CCBN anew. The only thing which could kill it suddenly is the continued total lack of proper financial management (no Treasurer yet again these elections!), which could lead to sudden bankruptcy if there were a profligate and stupid Chairman. We currently have a stupid Chairman, but I doubt whether he is profligate. He is however in the thrall of Andrew Welch ( as are they all), which is virtually the same thing. -- Duncan Heenan
On 30 June, 06:53, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
++snip++
> No. I doubt if it will happen suddenly. I predict a protracted decline. As > it shrinks, it will be forced to cut back and cut back, and the people will > get older and older and more out of touch, but there is nothing waiting in > the wings to replace it,
ABNC is quite capable of replacing the kind of "service" CCBN seems to think it gives to clubs because it's doing even more for them now than CCBN has ever done. Individual members have effectively proved they don't need their own nationalorganisation any more, otherwise CCBN membership wouldn't have fallen from 20,094 at the end of 1993 (see BN 119, Spring 1994) to half of that now.
> The only thing which could kill it suddenly is the continued total lack of > proper financial management (no Treasurer yet again these elections!), which > could lead to sudden bankruptcy if there were a profligate and stupid > Chairman. We currently have a stupid Chairman, > but I doubt whether he is profligate. He is however in the thrall of Andrew > Welch ( as > are they all), which is virtually the same thing.
A dangerous mixture indeed.Farrar is indeed stupid and Welch has proved his profligacy. Put the two together and you're not far off financial collapse already.
For what it's worth I'd put my money on a slow and painful decline with the end some time around 2014/2015, after the entirety of CCBN's reserves have found their way into Welch's account and the organisation is just a desiccated husk that he's unable to suck anything more out of and so he's lost interest in its survival.
rebustion wrote: >> No. I doubt if it will happen suddenly. I predict a protracted decline.
Yes but the end will come faster than anyone expects. It may decline slowly in 2010 but the end will be in a single BANG.
Like the banks where trouble was brewing for years and it was just not public, so that it blew up in a few weeks/months.
I expect that we shall hear nothing until it closes. There will be no warning - because the warning is now. SInce the warnings have all been ignored, the sudden collapse is ineviatble. We are already past the tipping poing.
My guess is that Welch will be ready with a new club/group and will move smoothly into gear because he knows the full story. I hesitate to put a year on it because it could happen at any time if only a single demand for high payment arrives at the wrong time.
On 1 July, 15:51, Simon <Not_Heysfo...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes but the end will come faster than anyone expects. It may decline > slowly in 2010 but the end will be in a single BANG.
I can't believe how similarly we think, are you sure you're not me, it's very confusing as so many people have alter egos on URN!!
> Like the banks where trouble was brewing for years and it was just not > public, so that it blew up in a few weeks/months.
I hadn't looked at it that way, but you/we/me are right!
> I expect that we shall hear nothing until it closes. There will be no > warning - because the warning is now. Since the warnings have all been > ignored, the sudden collapse is inevitable. We are already past the > tipping point.
Wow, have another cigar!!
> My guess is that Welch will be ready with a new club/group and will move > smoothly into gear because he knows the full story. I hesitate to put a > year on it because it could happen at any time if only a single demand > for high payment arrives at the wrong time.
Now there we differ, I hope, and believe, that Andrew is honest and trust worthy enough not to take advantage of his position.
Yes I believe that the financial decline will accelerate, as it does with matters of insolvency, you think you can sort it out, and the next thing you hear is the bailiff at the door, and bearing in mind the time it takes the EC to arrive at any decision, I fully expect the problem to overtake them.
Pete Knight wrote: > On 1 July, 15:51, Simon <Not_Heysfo...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes but the end will come faster than anyone expects. It may decline >> slowly in 2010 but the end will be in a single BANG.
> I can't believe how similarly we think, are you sure you're not me, > it's very confusing as so many people have alter egos on URN!!
>> Like the banks where trouble was brewing for years and it was just not >> public, so that it blew up in a few weeks/months.
> I hadn't looked at it that way, but you/we/me are right!
>> I expect that we shall hear nothing until it closes. There will be no >> warning - because the warning is now. Since the warnings have all been >> ignored, the sudden collapse is inevitable. We are already past the >> tipping point.
> Wow, have another cigar!!
>> My guess is that Welch will be ready with a new club/group and will move >> smoothly into gear because he knows the full story. I hesitate to put a >> year on it because it could happen at any time if only a single demand >> for high payment arrives at the wrong time.
> Now there we differ, I hope, and believe, that Andrew is honest and > trust worthy enough not to take advantage of his position.
I would imagine that he would consider that once his (only?) client had disapeared in a puff of debt he could rehard himself as a free agent, and if he just happened to have the contacts and plans for a new organisation in his back pocket, then he would be free to use them...?
On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote:
> I would imagine that he would consider that once his (only?) client had > disapeared in a puff of debt he could rehard himself as a free agent, > and if he just happened to have the contacts and plans for a new > organisation in his back pocket, then he would be free to use them...?
HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
As far as contacts go, my moles tell me he has already misused the naturist businesses/naturist clubs part of CCBN's database at least once to send out mailshots marketing himself and his "services" but has so far stayed clear of making any similar improper use of the individual members section of it (no doubt for Data Protection Act reasons). You may therefore have your finger on his game plan! Although that will come to nothing if HMRC get on his tail quickly.
> On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote:
> > I would imagine that he would consider that once his (only?) client had > > disapeared in a puff of debt he could rehard himself as a free agent, > > and if he just happened to have the contacts and plans for a new > > organisation in his back pocket, then he would be free to use them...?
> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" > people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an > abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land > Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
> As far as contacts go, my moles tell me he has already misused the > naturist businesses/naturist clubs part of CCBN's database at least > once to send out mailshots marketing himself and his "services" but > has so far stayed clear of making any similar improper use of the > individual members section of it (no doubt for Data Protection Act > reasons). You may therefore have your finger on his game plan! > Although that will come to nothing if HMRC get on his tail quickly.
> On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>> I would imagine that he would consider that once his (only?) client had >> disapeared in a puff of debt he could rehard himself as a free agent, >> and if he just happened to have the contacts and plans for a new >> organisation in his back pocket, then he would be free to use them...?
> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" > people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an > abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land > Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
HMRC looked at AW#s status a couple of years ago, but believed what they were told, and classed him as #self employed'. This conclusion is at odds with the facts (IMHO), but it is what they did, and they have not re-visited it since. In any case, if HMRC changed their minds the assesment for tax & NI would fall on CCBN, not Welch. I imagine that HMRC take the same view of AW as the police took of Mick Ayers, ie turn a blind eye to 'small' matters because they are too costly to look in to properly.
> As far as contacts go, my moles tell me he has already misused the > naturist businesses/naturist clubs part of CCBN's database at least > once to send out mailshots marketing himself and his "services" but > has so far stayed clear of making any similar improper use of the > individual members section of it (no doubt for Data Protection Act > reasons). You may therefore have your finger on his game plan! > Although that will come to nothing if HMRC get on his tail quickly.
> On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: > HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" > people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an > abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land > Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on status, the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about something you have no knowledge of.
>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on status, > the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about > something you have no knowledge of.
One of the scams that HMRC are clamping down on is so called "self-employed" people who trade as a limited company, are an employee of that company, pay themselves a nominal salary and then draw dividends, while dodging large amounts to tax and NI.
mileburner wrote: > "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote in message > news:h2hqeg$34f$1@aioe.org... >> "rebustion" <rebust...@googlemail.com> wrote in message >> news:05dcc4d0-7004-4d8f-a90d-5cc6f4d804e9@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >>> On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: >>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >>> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >>> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >>> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too. >> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on status, >> the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about >> something you have no knowledge of.
> One of the scams that HMRC are clamping down on is so called "self-employed" > people who trade as a limited company, are an employee of that company, pay > themselves a nominal salary and then draw dividends, while dodging large > amounts to tax and NI.
Rubbish - doing what you've just described doesn't even come close to being a 'scam' as you put it. It's a perfectly legal and accepted way of doing business. I'm not sure that our accountants would recommend it if it wasn't. We do exactly that with our Limited Company and HMRC have always accepted our accounts - don't forget that they're still getting their slice of the action through Corporation Tax.
Also I'm with Jim previously on the IR35 issue ..... lots and lots of factors are taken into account, not just the number of clients. Regards
>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on status, > the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about > something you have no knowledge of.
Working for only one person or firm If you are going to be working for one person or firm, you may be an employee. For more information you can:
>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on status, > the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about > something you have no knowledge of.
And you know all about this case, do you, 'Jim'?
You're right that HMRC take a number of factor in to account in determining status, but one of them is the number of clients and how long contracts run / are serially renewed. In AW's case, he claims in respect of HMRC to have other clients. But he tells CCBN that they have effectively all his time (that's what he said at an AGM, as well as in private). He'd be even more expensive than the £60k pa he costs currently if CCBN didn't have all his time! HMRC seek to determine the reality of the situation, and in reality I'd say that AW is employed, despite what words the contract might use. -- Duncan Heenan
> mileburner wrote: >> "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:h2hqeg$34f$1@aioe.org... >>> "rebustion" <rebust...@googlemail.com> wrote in message >>> news:05dcc4d0-7004-4d8f-a90d-5cc6f4d804e9@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >>>> On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: >>>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >>>> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >>>> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >>>> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too. >>> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on >>> status, the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post >>> about something you have no knowledge of.
>> One of the scams that HMRC are clamping down on is so called >> "self-employed" people who trade as a limited company, are an employee of >> that company, pay themselves a nominal salary and then draw dividends, >> while dodging large amounts to tax and NI. > Rubbish - doing what you've just described doesn't even come close to > being a 'scam' as you put it. It's a perfectly legal and accepted way of > doing business. I'm not sure that our accountants would recommend it if it > wasn't. We do exactly that with our Limited Company and HMRC have always > accepted our accounts - don't forget that they're still getting their > slice of the action through Corporation Tax.
> Also I'm with Jim previously on the IR35 issue ..... lots and lots of > factors are taken into account, not just the number of clients. > Regards
Employed or self-employed? In order to answer this question it is necessary to determine whether the person works under a contract of service (employees) or under a contract for services (self-employed, independent contractor). For tax and NICs purposes, there is no statutory definition of a contract of service or of a contract for services. What the parties call their relationship, or what they consider it to be, is not conclusive. It is the reality of the relationship that matters.
In order to determine the nature of a contract, it is necessary to apply common law principles. The courts have, over the years, laid down some factors and tests that are relevant, which is included in the overview below.
As a general guide as to whether a worker is an employee or self-employed; if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:
a.. Do they have to do the work themselves? b.. Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it? c.. Can they work a set amount of hours? d.. Can someone move them from task to task? e.. Are they paid by the hour, week, or month? f.. Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment? If the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean that the worker is self-employed:
a.. Can they hire someone to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense? b.. Do they risk their own money? c.. Do they provide the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves? d.. Do they agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take? e.. Can they decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services? f.. Do they regularly work for a number of different people? g.. Do they have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense?
>>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >>> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >>> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >>> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
>> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on >> status, the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post >> about something you have no knowledge of.
> One of the scams that HMRC are clamping down on is so called > "self-employed" people who trade as a limited company, are an employee of > that company, pay themselves a nominal salary and then draw dividends, > while dodging large amounts to tax and NI.
Working for one client can be a serious block to self employed status. Prior to registering you should get the agreement of HMRC, but they can and often do change their minds about status. Be careful!
HMRC are looking at the position in regard to the avoidance of NI and tax through dividend payments. At this moment in time this is a tax avoidance scheme rather than tax evasion.
> > On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: > > HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" > > people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an > > abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land > > Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on status, > the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about > something you have no knowledge of.
Perhaps Jim, since I am a Business Studies Honours Graduate, you would like to explain your reasons for dismissing my statement as "nonsense" and also prove that you are not posting youself about something you have no knowledge of (which looks dangerously close to the truth to me).
>>>> HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >>>> people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >>>> abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >>>> Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
>>> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on >>> status, the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't >>> post about something you have no knowledge of.
>> One of the scams that HMRC are clamping down on is so called >> "self-employed" people who trade as a limited company, are an employee >> of that company, pay themselves a nominal salary and then draw >> dividends, while dodging large amounts to tax and NI. > Working for one client can be a serious block to self employed status. > Prior > to registering you should get the agreement of HMRC, but they can and > often do > change their minds about status. Be careful!
> HMRC are looking at the position in regard to the avoidance of NI and > tax through dividend payments. At this moment in time this is a tax > avoidance scheme rather than tax evasion.
Before anone gets into a panic about the the last statement, if you're drawing a dividend a couple of times a year and you have it minuted, even if you're not paying any salary then HMRC are not likely to be much interested.
>> HMRC are looking at the position in regard to the avoidance of NI and tax >> through dividend payments. At this moment in time this is a tax avoidance >> scheme rather than tax evasion.
> Before anone gets into a panic about the the last statement, if you're > drawing a dividend a couple of times a year and you have it minuted, even > if you're not paying any salary then HMRC are not likely to be much > interested.
I agree, avoidance is a legal way of avoiding tax, which the Revenue accept. They have been looking at this type of issue for many years without making any changes. But, who knows about the future? Any changes will be high profile and take years to implement.
>> > On 1 July, 20:03, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: >> > HM Revenue & Customs take an appropriately dim view of "Self employed" >> > people who have only one client. They quite rightly regard this as an >> > abuse of self employed status. CCBN's declne could therefore land >> > Welch with a tax bill that tips him off the cliff too.
>> The above statement is nonsense HMRC judge self employed people on >> status, >> the amount of clients they have is irrelevant. Please don't post about >> something you have no knowledge of.
> Perhaps Jim, since I am a Business Studies Honours Graduate, you would > like to explain your reasons for dismissing my statement as "nonsense" > and also prove that you are not posting youself about something you > have no knowledge of (which looks dangerously close to the truth to > me).
Rebustion your qualifications are of no interest to me, it was your statement that prompted me to post. The company I work for has had people contracted on a self employed basis since 1975 and this is on a one client status. As long as the person is registered with the HMRC. When we first started taking on self employed people we asked the HMRC to look at it and as we had contracts drawn up with the people involved, it had their approval, so as far as your statement goes that they take a dim view total rubbish as long as there is a contract it is legal and all the tax and insurances are paid by the people involved the HMRC do not have a problem with self employed status.
Contracting people on a self employed basis has been very popular over the last 35 years to my knowledge and I am aware of many companies who use this method as it is very popular. I am surprised as Business Studies Honours Graduate you seem to have no knowledge of this, I would suggest before you make rash statements again try and get you facts right.
I will also draw your attention to the construction industry which has a very large amount of self employed people working in it.
On 6 July, 10:52, "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Rebustion your qualifications are of no interest to me
<snip for both clarity and the avoidance of perpetuating bullshit in this thread>
Which, presumably, is why you don't bother to disclose your own.
> Contracting people on a self employed basis has been very popular over the > last 35 years to my knowledge and I am aware of many companies who use this > method as it is very popular. I am surprised as Business Studies Honours > Graduate you seem to have no knowledge of this, I would suggest before you > make rash statements again try and get you facts right.
<further snip for same reasons>
This is the "Shamrock Organisation" discussed at length by Professor Charles Handy in his book "The Age of Unreason" (1990, Harvard Business School Press).
Did you enjoy it when you read it? Or haven't you bothered to?
|
