Tag Archive | "ir35 enquiry"

Can contractors avoid IR35 investigation by closing down their limited company?


Choose a Name: The name has to be unique, obviously, and not likely to be confused for someone else’s existing name. The best reference point is the Companies House website – www.companieshouse.gov.uk – which has a simple search facility so you can check your chosen version. Also, try to avoid names that are specifically related to your line of work, just in case you want to change careers later: imagine selling cars though a company called Al’s Bakery.
Decide on Share Ownership: Is this just you, or you and your spouse, or you and two or three other people? This is important, because it defines how to allocate the Ordinary Shares In the company. Dividends are paid in direct proportion to numbers of shares held. A husband and wife typically have 50% each, for example, but if one is already earning money, be aware of the impact of the share income on their tax position. Share allocation can be changed after the event. There are several variations on share management; but for anything other than a simple allocation of ordinary shares, get expert advice.
Register at Companies House: There is an online system you use to set up your company and pay the registration fee. It is fairly simple to use. One question it will ask is who the directors are. For a typical small contractor company you only need one but there’s no reason not to have more. Although not strictly necessary any more, it also helps to nominate a Company Secretary: this could be the same person, but it’s more sensible to have someone else, a partner or relative for example.
Register a Memorandum of Association: Something else to do while you are at Companies House. At its simplest this is a document describing what your company is for and how you wish to run it. You can do it yourself, but the document can have legal implications in a tax investigation so do some online research for a suitable template from sites such as www.simply-docs.co.uk or www.clickdocs.co.uk.
Set up a Bank Account: This has to be a business bank account. Banks are increasingly wary of new business accounts, so you will have to answer some detailed questions and it will help if you have some professional references and a signed contact to demonstrate you actually will have an income.
Register for VAT: You have to do this if your annual income is in excess of a set amount (currently £67,000 pa) but it Is advantageous to register anyway. VAT and the Flat Rate Scheme are discussed in more detail elsewhere.
And that’s it. It sounds complicated but is in fact quite straightforward. You can also take the easy way out; either use a company formation agent, or there are several accountants who specialise in contractors who will set up all if the above for you for a small fee, or even for free, as well as providing expert support. Finally keep track of all your various expenses setting the company up, since you can reclaim these once you start trading.

It is often heard that contractors routinely close down their companies in order to avoid IR35 investigations: the logic is that if the company no longer exists, it can’t be investigated. Sadly, perhaps, this is not actually the case.

Firstly, HMRC have the right to restore a closed (or dormant) company if they have reason to believe that the amount of tax owed makes it worthwhile doing so. Closing a company requires that you submit a final return and that can be investigated for PAYE compliance – which may easily turn into an IR35 case – up to 12 months after the actual closure date.

Secondly, should HMRC suspect incorrect information has been provided they have up to six years to investigate a company’s records If they suspect actual fraud or negligence, this extends to 20 years. So simply closing the company does not mean you won’t be investigated.

Although they have a fairly modest record of winning IR35 cases, should they succeed then a significant amount of money may need to be repaid. This will certainly be the unpaid taxes plus interest from the start of the investigated period. Under the provisions of Regulation 72, if HMRC conclude that you had deliberately misstated your PAYE position, as opposed to simply making a mistake over it, they can also impose penalties of up to 100% of the unpaid tax.

More importantly, Regulation 72 allows HMRC to pursue the director of the company personally for any outstanding debts provided they have firm evidence that said director was in a position to exercise some control over the affairs of the company. In other words, you are not protected from personally from having to pay the total debt.

But why would HMRC start such an investigation? To be fair, for most small freelance companies the effort is probably not worthwhile, but one trigger would be to notice that a director routinely closes and open companies in the same line of work for no obvious business reason. They may suspect “Phoenixing”, the practice of closing a company and opening a new one to avoid outstanding debts from the old company. Or the ex-Director may be the subject of an entirely separate investigation and HMRC decide to check his history.

The chances of a closed company being investigated may be small, but they are real. Closing the company does not offer any protection from IR35.

© 2009 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: String telephone by dotbenjamin

Posted in closing a company, esc16, ir35 insuranceComments (0)

The Lazy Man’s Summary of IR35


IR35, more properly known as the Intermediaries Legislation, at its very simplest is a taxation treatment intended to ensure that two workers doing the same job pay the same amount of taxes.
I t was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, in the 1999 budget and enacted in April 2000. It wasn’t mentioned in Brown’s budget speech, but in a press release after the event. This release was numbered IR35, hence the name.
It is a remarkably imprecise piece of legislation, but its stated intention is to prevent a worker who operates through an intermediary company, such as a micro-business or limited liability partnership, avoiding paying some NICs by taking payments in dividends rather than as salary. Dividends are essentially free of NICs, so the worker can save a significant amount of tax.
IR35 prevents this saving by deeming the worker’s salary to be 95% of their gross income and demands PAYE and NICs accordingly. The 5% is to cover the administrative cost of the company itself.
Dawn Primarola, the PMG at the time, announced that IR35 was not intended to apply to people who are in business on their own account. Sadly, IR35 does not – and probably could not – define the boundary between these workers and a jobbing contractor. Instead it tries to differentiate between a personal Contract of Service, which would be inside IR35 and a Contract for Services, which would not. To do this it falls back on long-standing tests of employment. Very briefly these are:
Direction and Control: is the worker under the Direction of their client and does the client exercise control over how they perform the work
Mutuality of Obligation: essentially does the client have to provide work and pay for work done, and is the worker required to accept work offered
Right of Substitution: can the worker send a substitute to perform the work
As case law has evolved it is now clear that these three tests hold firm. They must actually exist in practice as well as in the contract and the totality of the arrangement is taken into consideration as much as the precise contractual detail. As a result, most judgements on IR35 status are largely subjective. Accordingly there is significant uncertainty over any contract’s liability to IR35 and it is this that causes the problems.
There is an enormous body of work on IR35 and how to manage it, much of it stemming from an original analysis by Dave Smith of Accountax. However, the PCG (www.pcg.org.uk) was originally set up to combat IR35 and they remain the prime source of information. There has also been a recent analysis of Ten Years of IR35 by Contractor Calculator (www.contractorcalculator.co.uk) that provides much useful background.

IR35, more properly known as the Intermediaries Legislation, at its very simplest is a taxation treatment intended to ensure that two workers doing the same job pay the same amount of taxes.

I t was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, in the 1999 budget and enacted in April 2000. It wasn’t mentioned in Brown’s budget speech, but in a press release after the event. This release was numbered IR35, hence the name.

It is a remarkably imprecise piece of legislation, but its stated intention is to prevent a worker who operates through an intermediary company, such as a micro-business or limited liability partnership, avoiding paying some NICs by taking payments in dividends rather than as salary. Dividends are essentially free of NICs, so the worker can save a significant amount of tax.

IR35 prevents this saving by deeming the worker’s salary to be 95% of their gross income and demands PAYE and NICs accordingly. The 5% is to cover the administrative cost of the company itself.

Dawn Primarola, the PMG at the time, announced that IR35 was not intended to apply to people who are in business on their own account. Sadly, IR35 does not – and probably could not – define the boundary between these workers and a jobbing contractor. Instead it tries to differentiate between a personal Contract of Service, which would be inside IR35 and a Contract for Services, which would not. To do this it falls back on long-standing tests of employment. Very briefly these are:

Direction and Control: is the worker under the Direction of their client and does the client exercise control over how they perform the work

Mutuality of Obligation: essentially does the client have to provide work and pay for work done, and is the worker required to accept work offered

Right of Substitution: can the worker send a substitute to perform the work

As case law has evolved it is now clear that these three tests hold firm. They must actually exist in practice as well as in the contract and the totality of the arrangement is taken into consideration as much as the precise contractual detail. As a result, most judgements on IR35 status are largely subjective. Accordingly there is significant uncertainty over any contract’s liability to IR35 and it is this that causes the problems.

There is an enormous body of work on IR35 and how to manage it, much of it stemming from an original analysis by Dave Smith of Accountax. However, the PCG was originally set up to combat IR35 and they remain the prime source of information. There has also been a recent analysis of Ten Years of IR35 by Contractor Calculator that provides much useful background.

© 2009 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Image: Wooden Puzzle Cube by David Davies

Posted in ir35 rules, PAYEComments (0)

IR35 Enquiry- What you need to know about the Independent Review!


The recent move from the Special Commissioners to the Tax Tribunal brought about a number of changes to the processes leading up to, and including, a hearing.
One such change is the right to request, or accept an offer of, an independent review (once Determinations and Decisions have been raised) before the case is to be listed for a hearing.
When carrying out a review HMRC should consider the following:
- whether the facts have been established and any disagreement about them
- the technical and legal merits of the case
- materiality and proportionality
- the likelihood of success
- any wider implications
The reviewing officer can either cancel, vary or uphold the Determinations and Decisions. The taxpayer then has the right to appeal against HMRC’s decision (the time limits for either accepting a review or appealing against one are very strict and must be adhered to, if the deadlines are missed HMRC’s decision will be   final).
Since April, Accountax have had a number of cases independently reviewed and in a significant proportion of these cases, HMRC have agreed to withdraw from the case.
Although the reviewing officer will take into account all the correspondence on file, we have found it beneficial to write a detailed summary to the reviewing officer of the case setting out the relevant facts and supporting arguments. When drafting the letter it is particularly   important to bear in mind the above points as they will have a direct impact on the outcome of the review.
Facts of the case
HMRC will carry out the review based on the facts they have available and unless there have been fundamental errors in the fact finding, it is unlikely they will cancel the Determinations and Decisions.
It is still important however to highlight any omissions in the facts. The reviewing officer will usually acknowledge where they have insufficient evidence to comment on an area. Although it may not be enough for them to cancel the Determinations and Decisions, the Regional Appeals Unit will not want to take a case to the Tribunal if they do not have the necessary facts to support their position.
Technical and legal merits of the case
HMRC are unlikely to change their views and interpretation of case law and will usually adopt the same approach as they would argue should the case continue to a hearing. This may be useful as it provides an insight into the likely arguments HMRC will advance and therefore affords the taxpayer time to consider these specific points in greater detail.
Materiality and proportionality
The preparation involved in a hearing should not be underestimated and HMRC should not waste resources on arguing cases where the liabilities are outweighed by the time and expense of a hearing.
In most cases the liabilities at stake justify the continuation of a hearing. However this should not be assumed nor forgotten about. If the reviewing officer amends the Determinations or Decisions or reduces some to nil it may become a waste of resources to continue arguing the case.
After amending the Determinations and Decisions in one of our cases and cancelling some of the penalties HMRC were trying to impose, the liability to our client was reduced to £2,500. This led to the eventual closure of the case.
The likelihood of success
If the case has continued to the review stage, one would hope that HMRC are reasonably satisfied of their chances of success. This is however not always the case.
The reviewing officer in one of our cases (which was dropped at the review stage) commented that many case workers and status officers:
“become so embroiled in arguing the case, they can’t see the wood through the trees and lose sight of the realistic chances of success.”
The reviewing officer will have a fresh look at the case and should, in theory, assess the genuine strengths and weakness of the case rather than having his own personal vendetta.
The wider implications
If the case is part of a specific HMRC project or is unusual in some way, there may be wider implications to consider.
If HMRC were to lose at the Tribunal, it could damage their chances of successfully arguing other cases in that sector. If on the other hand, HMRC see the case as a test case in that sector, they will be reluctant to drop the case without a fight.
Accept/request review or list case?
In our opinion the advantages of an independent review outweigh the disadvantages.
The main problem with accepting a review is that it   allows HMRC more time to look at the file and formulate their arguments (as opposed to putting them under    immediate pressure if the case were listed for hearing).
Although we were (and still are) somewhat sceptical as to how “independent” the review procedure would be; we have already seen a number of cases dropped and the liabilities in others significantly reduced. The contents of the officer’s report has also enabled us to persuade HMRC to withdraw in other cases.
Whether an independent review is opted for will ultimately be a decision for the taxpayer although, from our experience so far, it is certainly worthwhile.
It should also be remembered that if you do submit a detailed summary of the case to the reviewing officer, your letter will form part of the documents bundle. This could be a useful document to have on file when the Tribunal reads through the bundle.

The recent move from the Special Commissioners to the Tax Tribunal brought about a number of changes to the processes leading up to, and including, a hearing.

One such change is the right to request, or accept an offer of, an independent review (once Determinations and Decisions have been raised) before the case is to be listed for a hearing.

The Review

When carrying out a review HMRC should consider the following:

- whether the facts have been established and any disagreement about them

- the technical and legal merits of the case

- materiality and proportionality

- the likelihood of success

- any wider implications

The reviewing officer can either cancel, vary or uphold the Determinations and Decisions. The taxpayer then has the right to appeal against HMRC’s decision (the time limits for either accepting a review or appealing against one are very strict and must be adhered to, if the deadlines are missed HMRC’s decision will be   final).

Since April, Accountax have had a number of cases independently reviewed and in a significant proportion of these cases, HMRC have agreed to withdraw from the case.

Although the reviewing officer will take into account all the correspondence on file, we have found it beneficial to write a detailed summary to the reviewing officer of the case setting out the relevant facts and supporting arguments. When drafting the letter it is particularly   important to bear in mind the above points as they will have a direct impact on the outcome of the review.

Facts of the case

HMRC will carry out the review based on the facts they have available and unless there have been fundamental errors in the fact finding, it is unlikely they will cancel the Determinations and Decisions.

It is still important however to highlight any omissions in the facts. The reviewing officer will usually acknowledge where they have insufficient evidence to comment on an area. Although it may not be enough for them to cancel the Determinations and Decisions, the Regional Appeals Unit will not want to take a case to the Tribunal if they do not have the necessary facts to support their position.

Technical and legal merits of the case

HMRC are unlikely to change their views and interpretation of case law and will usually adopt the same approach as they would argue should the case continue to a hearing. This may be useful as it provides an insight into the likely arguments HMRC will advance and therefore affords the taxpayer time to consider these specific points in greater detail.

Materiality and proportionality

The preparation involved in a hearing should not be underestimated and HMRC should not waste resources on arguing cases where the liabilities are outweighed by the time and expense of a hearing.

In most cases the liabilities at stake justify the continuation of a hearing. However this should not be assumed nor forgotten about. If the reviewing officer amends the Determinations or Decisions or reduces some to nil it may become a waste of resources to continue arguing the case.

After amending the Determinations and Decisions in one of our cases and cancelling some of the penalties HMRC were trying to impose, the liability to our client was reduced to £2,500. This led to the eventual closure of the case.

The likelihood of success

If the case has continued to the review stage, one would hope that HMRC are reasonably satisfied of their chances of success. This is however not always the case.

The reviewing officer in one of our cases (which was dropped at the review stage) commented that many case workers and status officers:

“become so embroiled in arguing the case, they can’t see the wood through the trees and lose sight of the realistic chances of success.”

The reviewing officer will have a fresh look at the case and should, in theory, assess the genuine strengths and weakness of the case rather than having his own personal vendetta.

The wider implications

If the case is part of a specific HMRC project or is unusual in some way, there may be wider implications to consider.

If HMRC were to lose at the Tribunal, it could damage their chances of successfully arguing other cases in that sector. If on the other hand, HMRC see the case as a test case in that sector, they will be reluctant to drop the case without a fight.

Accept/request review or list case?

In our opinion the advantages of an independent review outweigh the disadvantages.

The main problem with accepting a review is that it   allows HMRC more time to look at the file and formulate their arguments (as opposed to putting them under    immediate pressure if the case were listed for hearing).

Although we were (and still are) somewhat sceptical as to how “independent” the review procedure would be; we have already seen a number of cases dropped and the liabilities in others significantly reduced. The contents of the officer’s report has also enabled us to persuade HMRC to withdraw in other cases.

Whether an independent review is opted for will ultimately be a decision for the taxpayer although, from our experience so far, it is certainly worthwhile.

It should also be remembered that if you do submit a detailed summary of the case to the reviewing officer, your letter will form part of the documents bundle. This could be a useful document to have on file when the Tribunal reads through the bundle.

David Harmer is the Operations Director of Accountax Consulting
© 2009 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited

Image: paperwork 2 by Isaac Bowen

Posted in ir35 insurance, ir35 rulesComments (0)


stay up to date:

behind the scenes

Gone for a stroll Spaceman Wanna be spaceman Off for a pint...or two? Look at the size of it! Marathon Des Sables
View more photos >

our top 5 twitter posts

contractor accountants

contractoraccts



Join the conversation
Free Telephone Advice