On 6 July, 10:52, "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I will also draw your attention to the construction industry which has a > very large amount of self employed people working in it.
Having spent several years self employed in the construction industry I can assure you that one client is a problem, which is why my accountant warned me at the time. The problem for HMRC is that they lack the staff to investigate all the many thousands who only work for one client. I once worked for a company that had me invoice two different companies, one a subsidiary of the other, to help me remain undetected by HMRC.
I know of several guys in the construction industry who had their tax exemption status removed as a result of only working for one company. The odd thing is this never applied to agencies, and I never had to issue vouchers to them either, they have a special niche that means they employ people, but avoid paying holiday pay and redundancy when they discard you.
> >> 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.
As soon as HMRC close a loophole another is found, and in a tenth of the time it took HMRC to plug the last one. Everyone tries to minimise the amount of tax they pay, that's the main reason for appointing an accountant to submit your files to HMRC, otherwise any old number cruncher could do it. Don't step into the taxation miefield without a properly trained person to lead you through it.
> On 6 July, 10:52, "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> I will also draw your attention to the construction industry which has a >> very large amount of self employed people working in it.
> Having spent several years self employed in the construction industry > I can assure you that one client is a problem, which is why my > accountant warned me at the time. The problem for HMRC is that they > lack the staff to investigate all the many thousands who only work for > one client. I once worked for a company that had me invoice two > different companies, one a subsidiary of the other, to help me remain > undetected by HMRC.
> I know of several guys in the construction industry who had their tax > exemption status removed as a result of only working for one company. > The odd thing is this never applied to agencies, and I never had to > issue vouchers to them either, they have a special niche that means > they employ people, but avoid paying holiday pay and redundancy when > they discard you.
> Pete
I have no experience of the construction industry Pete and in my posts to this thread I have posted the company I work for experience in using self employed people over the last 35 years with no problems, I do not doubt that some people have had problems which could be the result of them not knowing/using the proper procedure.
> On 6 July, 10:52, "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote: >> Rebustion your qualifications are of no interest to me
> 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>
I didn't disclose my qualification as as they are irelevant in this debate. Which seems after my last post, you are unable to continue with a sensible debate and snip all paragraphs relevant to any further discussion. So I will say goodbye
> 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?
> I have no experience of the construction industry Pete and in my posts to > this thread I have posted the company I work for experience in using self > employed people over the last 35 years with no problems, I do not doubt > that some people have had problems which could be the result of them not > knowing/using the proper procedure.
HMRC don't like people claiming self-employed status when they are, in fact, effectively employees. They have a number of criteria by means of which they decide whether a person, claiming to be self-employed, is in fact an employee. These criteria include such things as not providing your own office and/or equipment, not employing your own support staff etc. But one of the most important is working for only one client.
So if you only work for one client, work at or from premises provided by that client, use equipment provided by that client and rely on support staff provided by that client HMRC *will* deem you to be an employee and tax you accordingly. Even if not all those criteria are met HMRC may still do so, if on balance, you look more like an employee than an independant contractor to them.
On 6 July, 17:23, "Jim Fisher" <spamkil...@live.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> > 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?
> I have never read it and don't intend thank you.
You can lead a horse to water but it may not drink. Dickheads on the other hand can be very stubborn indeed!
rebustion wrote: > On 6 July, 17:38, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: >> rebustion wrote: >>> 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. >> Ohh look it's a pissing contest!
> You could be right. So when are you going to do your bit, piss off and > leave us all alone?
In message <bca1d180-1758-4f44-9dca-91c4061c3...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> writes
>I know of several guys in the construction industry who had their tax >exemption status removed as a result of only working for one company. >The odd thing is this never applied to agencies, and I never had to >issue vouchers to them either, they have a special niche that means >they employ people, but avoid paying holiday pay and redundancy when >they discard you.
>Pete
Avoiding tax by 'self-employed' workers was a big problem in the past so special arrangements apply to the construction industry, which are unlikely to give much guidance as to the position of a contractor in the marketing function who describes himself as a 'consultant'.
-- Richard Burnham---------------------------------------- Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else
> In message > <bca1d180-1758-4f44-9dca-91c4061c3...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Pete > Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> writes
> >I know of several guys in the construction industry who had their tax > >exemption status removed as a result of only working for one company. > >The odd thing is this never applied to agencies, and I never had to > >issue vouchers to them either, they have a special niche that means > >they employ people, but avoid paying holiday pay and redundancy when > >they discard you.
> >Pete
> Avoiding tax by 'self-employed' workers was a big problem in the past so > special arrangements apply to the construction industry, which are > unlikely to give much guidance as to the position of a contractor in the > marketing function who describes himself as a 'consultant'.
The situation from a tax inspectors point of view is much the same, and don't forget that the 714 was all encompassing, despite the fact that I worked in control systems at the time of my self employment, I was still bracketed as construction industry, as weer a great many who have never set foot on a building site.
The scheme covered anyone the Inland Revenue decreed was allied to the construction industry, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
>On 9 July, 16:45, Richard Burnham <c...@xemaps.com> wrote: >> In message >> <bca1d180-1758-4f44-9dca-91c4061c3...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Pete >> Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> writes
>> >I know of several guys in the construction industry who had their tax >> >exemption status removed as a result of only working for one company. >> >The odd thing is this never applied to agencies, and I never had to >> >issue vouchers to them either, they have a special niche that means >> >they employ people, but avoid paying holiday pay and redundancy when >> >they discard you.
>> >Pete
>> Avoiding tax by 'self-employed' workers was a big problem in the past so >> special arrangements apply to the construction industry, which are >> unlikely to give much guidance as to the position of a contractor in the >> marketing function who describes himself as a 'consultant'.
>The situation from a tax inspectors point of view is much the same, >and don't forget that the 714 was all encompassing, despite the fact >that I worked in control systems at the time of my self employment, I >was still bracketed as construction industry, as weer a great many who >have never set foot on a building site.
>The scheme covered anyone the Inland Revenue decreed was allied to the >construction industry, no matter how much you protest otherwise.
>Pete
What the hell are you talking about? Protesting? Andrew Welch is in the construction industry?
-- Richard Burnham---------------------------------------- Naturist Accommodation UK: http://naco.org.uk The opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else
|
