back to article Freelancers might be taxed as employees after High Court ruling

An IT contractor has been hit with a £99,000 tax bill after the High Court ruled that he should be taxed as an employee of the company he undertook work for. Jon Bessell, 50 per cent owner and sole director of Dragonfly Consulting, carried out work for motoring organisation AA for three years until 2003. Bessell is an IT …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    taxes and law

    Let's be clear here. Apart from this guy and his £99k bill (where he surely must have been doing some dodgy accounting!), most contractors running outside of IR35 are paying all taxes they are required to by law based on legal advice. The law does not say that using dividends as a major form of income is illegal. Funny enough a lot of MPs probably do exactly this through their various side interests and investments (e.g. director/chairman of XYZ etc). All that's happened is the gov has said "we want a part of that!" and invented a convoluted contradictory law that costs the tax payer a fortune to police.

    The difference really is not that great, as a large chunk of income comes from dividends which (and people forget this) are taxed at source at 10% as part of corporation tax that the contractor's company pays, just the same as anyone else who gets dividends. A regular salaried employee pays 20% on their salary income at base rate. So really about a 10% difference. Well, and then there are the NI savings ;) (to be fair I'd be okay paying full NI if I have to, but not if I'm deemed an employee and forced twice what an employee pays which is what IR35 demands).

    If said contractor goes into the top tax bracket, they pay another 22.5% on those dividends.

    The real savings from contracting come more from the fact you are given a lump of money to use as you like (spend on sick, holidays, expenses, pension, invest in the company, etc), and typically your costs are lower than those of a big corporate.

    In fact, you are likely to be costing the client less than an employee who gets the same take home, when you consider all the overhead costs, and are easier to recruit (and probably more likely to have the required skills). Saving to the client, which boosts the IT industry and better for the economy.

    What's also frequently overlooked is the amount of business skills being gained through contractors running their own businesses, and how many of these businesses grow into more than just a simple contract service business.

    But anyway. The real beef I have is with the concept of IR35 and the employee status as a means of targeting a specific group. Paying the extra tax is not much of a concern, but being told I am an employee of the client but at the same time I'm not and don't get the same benefits, but must pay full income, can't have profits, and can't invest in my business and thus end up with theoretically less than if I'd been a full employee. It's just so contradictory and confusing.

    Solution is simple. Tax dividends as full salary with NI. We can then pay ourselves what we want, just at full tax. Bonus is we can still invest in our businesses and take profits from it when we want rather than when we are told, and thus can remain "proper" businesses.

    Of course they'd hate that as a lot of influential people way beyond the IT sector will suddenly be hit with tax ;)

    Failing that, provide us with a means of running our affairs that has the business/personal financial safety net of a Ltd company but is akin to being a true sole-trader / self-employed.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Cake and eat it

    <rant>I understand why contractors are paid higher rates than the rest of us to account for lack of sick pay, pension, holidays etc but I don't see why they should pay less tax than me while earning much more.

    Slam the loophole shut. I for one am sick of well over 60% of my pay going to tax between deductions and then tax on everything I spend while those doing the same job get silly money and pay less tax.

    Make the contractors pay corporation tax as directors AND paye/NI as an employee of their limited companies. </rant>

  3. Martin Owens

    Suprised Support from HMRC

    People should pay their tax, if they didn't want to have a tax system organised the way it is then perhaps they should vote for someone other than the blue and red sections of the authoritarian party.

    Someone mentioned Liberty? the UK isn't ready for Liberty, we don't have the mind set for freedom and we certainly don't care about free speech. Why are we surprised when we get shafted? it's us that are doing the shafting.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    The problem with IR35

    Whatever your thoughts are about contractors, the IR35 rules are just plain unclear. The guy wasn't avoiding paying tax - he wasn't sure if he had to and sure as hell wasn't going to volunteer any additional taxes.

    Imagine the following:

    You are a full time employee and the government decides to tax all full time employees an extra 10% on their income if they mostly drive a car to work.

    Now you are going to want to know what 'mostly' means! You drive to work three times a week. Are you caught? Are you going to pay the tax? Are you going to go to the revenue and say 'Hi, I drive to work three days a week - should I pay you more money'? What do you think they are going to say?

  5. Eric Dennis
    Thumb Down

    HMMM....

    Glad I'm not a contractor working in the UK. Sounds like your high courts have been influenced by a certain "Presidential Cowboy from Texas".

  6. Steve

    @ Aristotles (sic) Horse

    "I became a contractor to avoid becoming an ignorant, bitter and unhappy career desk rat similar to that which you both seem to be.

    Another reason was that it suits the lifestyle I want to live and I'm back to a new contract next week. I take six months holiday (or more if I choose to) every two years. How's your prescribed 20 something days a year?"

    So you decided to go with ignorant, arrogant and unpleasant contract rat instead?

    Personally, I'm still trying to work out what you took offence to in Steven Raith's comment. How do you get from someone pointing out that, in any dispute like this, the accountants and lawyers will always come out on top to him being ignorant and bitter? Maybe you need another of those 6 month holidays to calm down a bit.

    And before you start labelling people as "thick as shite", you might want to have a root about for the apostrophe that fell out of your username - it's probably under one of those big piles of money.

  7. Igor Mozolevsky
    Paris Hilton

    A title is required.

    So he was contracted exclusively for one company... Nothing new here, this rule was there for ages, the High Court just re-affirmed that people shouldn't take the p*ss...

  8. David Simpson
    Flame

    Huh ?

    Is anyone a qualified accountant because the amount of differing opinions on this page is staggering.

    @Overseas employer

    By Anonymous Coward

    As smart as Register readers are I would advise an accountant, I know we all like to save a few pennies but depending on comments on a news story for tax/business advice is not very wise.

  9. Jeff Bradshaw
    Flame

    Does that mean that the AA have to pay his employers NIC?

    Just one thing, since he was deemed to be employed by the AA does this mean that the AA are now liable for the benefits that they give other employees and also do they now have to pay his employers NIC? Since obviously they would if he were PAYE?

    Otherwise does he claim back the employers NIC that he has already paid to HMG? Surely if you are deemed an employee you should get the paid holidays and other benefits?????

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    Contractors stop moaning

    You get paid a highly inflated hourly rate, unlike us employees that are on a fixed wage. You get paid for every hour worked, unlike us employees who mostly work bits of overtime all over the place and we're lucky if we get half of it back in lieu.

    This offsets the negative points:

    You don't get sick pay, redundency, some of your fee goes to an agency (on a plus side many agencies will give you some benefits normally afforded by employment), pensions, life insurance or healthcare.

    That's the risk... I know contractors who would normally be on about £40k per year earn around £80k in a year. They then take a couple of months off and travel or take time out to write a book, bring up kids etc. The extra money you can earn is to pay for your own pension fund, your own life insurance, to cover you in times of no work, or sickness... you can't have your cake and eat it too! (and yes, I know that's a stupid saying... why on earth would you want a cake and not eat it??).

    Contractors need to realise that this extra money they're getting paid is there for a reason... not just to pay for a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.

    So earn double the money you would normally get...

    Pay for the extra services you need to cover you (or take a risk and not have them)...

    And PAY YOUR BLOODY TAXES!

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Top news

    I'm all for clamping down on the piss takers.

    I know an IT contractor earning over 100k a year, and his declared income is £8k because of an IR35 "loophole". How much do you think he contributes in NI payments on that income?

    I know another guy who's contracted (solely) for the same company for 15 years and he still gets away with it.

    It's bee a piss-take for too long and it's immoral.

    Paris because she knows when it's ok to be immoral.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    @DaveE et al

    I'm a contractor. I pay myself around £25k through PAYE - I therefore pay Employeres and Employee's NI. I also pay VAT. I pay income tax on the dividends too. I also paid around £16k of corporation tax. I pay around £1k for an accountant as well.

    I get no paid holidays, no sick pay, no pension, no redundancy.

    My contract is with an investment bank, so I had to suck up a 10% pay cut. I'm now also in the position of looking for a new contract in a tough market.

    I would still rather be a contractor, because I am far more in control of my fate than when I was a wage slave. I don't have to suffer through pointless HR performance reviews, and if I feel like it I can take 3 months off in the summer.

    So for DaveE and all the others, don't push the blame onto us contractors just because of your fear of being responsible for your own, and your envey at others getting out and making some cash for themselves.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    "almost" is disingenuous

    The judgement actually says he worked for the AA every day for almost three years - not almost every day for three years.

    And guys, don't believe everything that the PCG put out. This doesn't attack IR35 defences, the contracts in this were a mess & the AA representative said they wouldn't accept a substitute unless the substitute had their own contract - a point that, ages back, killed another IR35 claim.

    Get the contracts right & make sure your client backs them up!

  14. Andy Barber
    Thumb Down

    John Birt

    Wasn't John Birt, the Tory imposed boss of the BBC, also employed as a Self-employed consultant?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    <no title>

    "I simply cannot understand how the High Court has reached its decision"

    From past experience, based on the media reporting of charges, and the court's final judgement, if one can actually understand a court's decision then the lawyers and judge simply weren't trying hard enough to reach an obscure verdict, that day.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    There's a simple solution ......

    ...... just become an Indian citizen.

    My employer is currently sacking staff as fast as they can print the P45s.

    They are being replaced by Indians flown in to Blighty by an Indian outsourcing company. HMRC grants the Indians a 'dispensation' from all UK tax and NI. (Including the benefits in kind like free housing and BUPA).They can even reclaim VAT on leaving the UK if they keep their receipts. The Indian's are therefore laughing.

    The Indian outsourcing company, being Indian, pays no UK corporation tax or employer's NI. Best of all, they operate from one of India's 'Special Economic Zones'. Hence they pay no Indian corporation tax either. The Indian outsourcing company is therefore laughing too.

    Because the Indians pay no tax, my employer can pay them about half what they pay me while still giving them the same take home pay as me. No need to worry about UK employment law either. Maternity leave, working time regs, paid holidays and sick leave are all nostalgic memories for my employer. My employer is, therefore, also laughing.

    The only people not laughing are the couple of thousand British managers and engineers who have been made 'redundant' and who can't compete with a foreign workforce for whom tax is something other people have to worry about.

    There's a shiny shilling for anybody who can convince me that this is anything less than an outrageous abuse of UK tax law by HMRC.

  17. Steven Raith
    Stop

    @Aristotles horse

    "I read through your comments and I can only presume that you are both as thick as shite as you obviously didn't give your points any balanced consideration before posting them? This case is all about unpaid NI contributions rather than income TAX deductions or road tax avoidance, although I'll partly conceed the point re the doctor, but it will be a slim concession at that."

    Um, no, its about NI and tax contributions - and I quote:

    "Mr Justice Henderson upheld the Special Commissioner's view that Bessell should pay the **tax and national insurance** contributions he would have been due to pay as an employee, which amount to £99,000."

    As contracter, I'm sure you are aware of the 'pay yorurself minimum wage and take the rest as dividends' accounting scheme that is quite popular [although I go through an umbrella so this doesn't affect me too much at my 'middling income'.]

    "Whilst I can understand your bitterness at contractors earning a lot more than your timid middle ranking salary, we do as a rule pay FAR more income tax overall than you are likely to... ever. Deductions also include paying both employees and employers NI. Despite these large deductions though, most IT contractors CHOOSE to be so for a reason, take myself... I became a contractor to avoid becoming an ignorant, bitter and unhappy career desk rat similar to that which you both seem to be."

    I did much the same - and I completely agree with you - there are benefits of being able to just piss off from a crap job with a weeks notice, rather than playing the greivance game with HR and management! Also the ability to just say "I'm not going to be in next tuesday" and effectively be able to do that as much as you want, as long as the client is OK with it.

    "Another reason was that it suits the lifestyle I want to live and I'm back to a new contract next week. I take six months holiday (or more if I choose to) every two years. How's your prescribed 20 something days a year?"

    Nope, see above - I know exactly where you are coming from - handy, isn't it? I don't get paid enough to warrant six months off, mind...I expect your a specialist, DBA, project management or somesuch - either that or you have low outgoings compared to your incomings.

    On that subject, I might like to remind a few people who are banging on about 'leeching' contractors that the whole point of a free market economy is that you charge the going rate and if the service you provide is good enough, you get paid that rate. If you aren't good or specialised enough to get a high rate, then deal with it and stop being so fucking bitter - Aristotles horse is not wrong about the tax, once you get up to a certain level of income.

    "Fuckwits."

    Charming! Although for renting a flat in the commuter belt on my current rate, not entirely inaccurate. Suffice to say I am not commanding a stratospheric rate at the moment...!

    Ah, now lets review my post:

    "Several thousand IT workers have started banging their heads against the wall in disgust"

    This is because a lot of middling IT work - desktop and network support - is now almost all contracting, where you are there for several months, if not years, at a time, so this case *is* relevant to them and should the Govt decide to start making more examples, could well affect the marketplace, seeing how few companies these days seem to want to take on permanent IT support staff.

    "while several thousand lawyers and accountants are punching the air at the work coming their way soon...."

    Because should this kick off in a bigger fashion - and it might, just look at IR35 FFS - then yet again they will be the only people to gain from it as they will have more steady, relaible work coming their way from IT workers wanting accounts covered properly, and from IT workers and clients wanting themselves defended in court should someones contract or working style be a bit squiffy, and something like this come up again.

    That was the point I was trying to make [perhaps too subtly?] but I suspect had we been having this discussion in the pub, this apparent complete misunderstanding would never have happened!

    Hope that helps.

    Steven R

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    re. taxes and law

    I suspect that the problem is not what he paid tax on, but rather how he calculated his taxable income. Contractors, like any other business, can claim a lot of allowances before they calculate a profit for taxation.

    e.g. As an employee I have a 70 mile round-trip to work and back, which as a contractor I could claim at 40p a mile up to 10000 miles and 25p a mile thereafter. For 200 working days a year this gives me £5000 to offset against profit. As an employee I have to pay tax and NI on my wages BEFORE paying for petrol, insurance, road tax, tyres, servicing etc.

    I've worked as a contractor and as an employee, and this guy was clearly working as an employee.

    This is a situation that large companies have been keen to exploit, by paying people as contractors they've avoided their responsibilities as employers. Although I don't agree with those that would scrap IR35 and allow contractors to work as employees whilst exploiting the tax loopholes unavailable to the PAYE employees, I'm disappointed that the court hasn't looked at what the AA has done here to encourage this. Once again it's the little guy carrying the can.

  19. Callum
    Paris Hilton

    what about the big contracting consultancies?

    as an owner of a small IT company - why should I pay a higher rate of tax for my employees than the bigger guys such as Logica, Accenture, EDS, PA Consulting, Capita etc that are also engaged by clients to get consultants in to do the donkey work in exactly the same manner as my company is.

    Most switched on small freelancer companies operate exactly the same as the bigger IT consultancies: a daily rate with a multiplier markup to cover the cost of employing workers and the cost of sales, indemnity insurance, bench time, training, sickness and so on. the company status is the same - all applying the same companies act and tax rules.

    If freelance ltd companies have to pay corporation tax and full income tax, then Logica, Accenture, HP, et al are in for a big surprise because their employees will also have to pay personal income tax based on their consultants charge-out rate at their clients. Accenture employees take note given the enormous chargeout rates they get.

    When is a small company not a big company when they are structured the same way?

    I've not seen the judgement in full, but this guy was probably not operating like that and was using the lazy umbrella company mechanism and so was not taking the risk that a proper IT organisation would take.

    paris, because she doesn't mind being rogered by brainless idiots either

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    @AC

    "I'm a contractor. I pay myself around £25k through PAYE - I therefore pay Employeres and Employee's NI. I also pay VAT. I pay income tax on the dividends too. I also paid around £16k of corporation tax. I pay around £1k for an accountant as well."

    My heart bleeds for you. You pay yourself "around £25k through PAYE". So less than £25k then? When the NI limit for PAYE is £40k plus 1% on top of that?

    So you are deliberately avoiding the National Insurance payments that everybody else has to pay because you think that for some reason you deserve not to pay it?

    And well done for paying VAT. Would that be the same VAT that you charge your client?

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Overseas employer

    I do (proper) freelance work, and one client is in Spain. Makes no difference where the end point is, as far as the HMRC are concerned. It just means there's more bloody paper work to fill in!

    And to the tosser (dik?) that said freelancers shy away from meaty projects. You're a tosser, and most likely on the did-my-MS-exams gravy train doing the menial tasks given to you by you (contract) project manager or (vendor) project architect. Which is many a contractors lot, when not in mind-numbing support.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    same company

    Sometimes it's unavoidable to end up in a situation similar to an employee - projects which run for years, having to work on site due to nature of data/software/security and having to do work as prescribed by a manager who may be permanent (I bet the Olympics is full of contractors in this situation - maybe they should all leave). I like the footballer comparison mentioned (would be surprised if they weren't minimising their tax), 5 year contract, has to be you, no control over where you play - clearly not within IR35 if they are running as a limited company. But they can afford better accountants I suppose.

    I've had plenty of permanent staffers moan about us contractors being paid more, but they seem very reluctant to give up their holiday pay etc for a chance at the same. On the other hand I have been offered permanent roles which I have turned down as it is easier to get a range of experience and do varied work as a contractor - all of which ultimately benefits the UK, the people I do work for and the people at those sites who I train.

    Never mind, I will eventually take my knowledge overseas with me and that will be good riddance to another foreigner stealing all your jobs.*

    *yes, had that too. So much so that now I often joke with permanent staff (those I get on well with at any rate) that I am only here to steal their jobs, take all my money overseas** and pay no tax***.

    **which clearly I don't as I live here.

    ***apart from the tax that I have to of course.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Dead Vulture

    Ah, the old switcherooney

    We lost against Artic.

    We've changed the law

    Pick unsuspecting victim.

    Amazingly we now have our conviction and precedent.

    The only advantage to being a contractor is lower NI payments and a larger expense account. Oh and the freedom to change jobs without people thinking its strange. And avoiding office politics.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fuzzyness of IR35

    The IR35 rules are more like guidelines; At the end of the day if the IRS decides that you are a acting as an employee of a company, then you are.

    Unless you are a genuine freelancer, then you have three options:

    1. PAYE your taxes and NI like everyone else (e.g an via an IRS vetted umbrella company)

    2. Set up a limited company and take a personal insurance policy out against being hit by an IE35 audit (need to keep paying insurance for many years after you quit contracting)

    3. Bury you head in the ground and get hit by bill for five years of unpaid tax

    Regardless of your view of IR35, you have to prepare for it, and it's not something you can miss when setting up your consultancy.

    If you are not happy with your pay, then you must ask the client for a higher rate.

    Excellent point in the comment on "taxes and law"; Many people would like to pay the right amount of tax but without interference into how that person conducts his business.

    The real danger of IR35 rulings is that it puts people off hiring contractors. Most large companies now take an indirect route through an agency, but even this is not enough protection for either side.

    As a result of the ruling in this article, you would expect the individual to be able to claim three years of employee national insurance contributions back from the AA.

    As a contractor, you get your money early but take risks in terms of termination, sickness and benefits. There needs to be a legal status which recognises this status as distinct from an employee and levies a fair rate of tax as a result.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @AC Having Cake and Eating It

    Either you were being ironic, or you really don't have a clue...

    Contractors DO pay corporation tax on their limited company profits and they DO pay full tax and NI (including employers contributions - that's an extra 12% or so) on any salary they draw from their limited companies. Or, at least, they do unless they want to get a REALLY nasty visit from HM Revenue and Customs.

    Of course, there are ways and means to minimise the amounts of tax and NI that you pay and some contractors do take the mickey to a rather extravagant degree that ends up making life more difficult for everyone. However, none of that stops IR35 being an ill-conceived and cack-handed bit of legislation that has caused far more harm and hassle than good. Not that it's likely to bother me any more - I bailed out of contracting in 2000 when I saw which way the wind was blowing - but the whole thing should still be dropped and only replaced by something that has had some sensible, coherent thought applied. (Yes, I know, that's a tall order for any UK government, much less the current one...)

    Oh, and to the person way back at the beginning who mentioned "salary as loan". If by that you are referring to the fact that a director's loan can be repaid to the director without additional taxation then you don't understand how the whole company financing thing works. Come back and discuss it again once you've put a couple of hundred grand of your own, already taxed, money into a company so that you can develop a business.

    (Yes, OK, there are probably other salary/loan arrangements that I can think of, but none of them would save you much in tax - or even give you the appearance of saving any - and most of them would probably just be a red rag to a bull as far as nice, invasive HMRC inspections go.)

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Seriously go sort out the real criminals and fraudsters!

    This is ridiculous.. contracted in for a specific purpose is not as an employer/employee relationship... it serves the purpose of a project which you were brought in to do! Terrible!

  27. The Mighty Spang
    Thumb Down

    this stuff really gets on my tits

    All this bollocks of "pay your tax and NI matey", the problem here is that this is just an attack on the LONE contractor. People/press ignore the giant consulting companies. about...ooh... 8 years ago I was working for an investment bank where a consulting company was charging out £1200 a day for "consultants" - who were mostly guys fresh out of university (fairly useless) and being paid about £25,000 a year.

    where are the laws blocking these giant corporations with giant wings of accountants organising their affairs to take the (immense) profits offshore and avoid paying tax? there aren't any. because new labour has a fairly high proportion of ex-consultants whose loyalties seem to lay with them.

    need i remind you : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1791168.stm

    Anderson banned from govt work after delorian debacle by tories. sued for £200m.

    New Lab settled for £21m. Anderson gets govt work again

    "Confusion is added to the Andersen angle by the fact that Accenture (the renamed Andersen Consulting), until 2000 its sister company, has also been close to Labour - Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt used to be its research director. "

    these huge consultancies were upset that independant contractors were taking the "cream" that they "deserve" (and im talking only top tier here, plenty of contractors don't earn a great deal) and allegedly conspired with the govt to to bring in these laws.

    its a perfect tactic as it can be sold to the unwashed as a kind of socialist "how dare they", they must pay the right taxes when the benefit to both sides of a contracting deal is great. (especially for a company. gets to side step all the layers of moronic legistlation the lab govt brought in as a sop to the unions, which stifles small-medium employers in the UK)

    ignored is the fact that these giant consultantices working in organisations appear to fall foul of the same rules (i.e. they should be taxed/NId at their bill out rate)

    even more ignored is the ability for these companies to take the money out of the UK almost tax free. that's where the REAL money is. by playing a game of divide and conquer, they win. and yer average dave spart (eyes passism) is too damn thick to spot it.

    anyhoo it don't bother me I don't even work in IT anymore.

  28. Eman Tsal
    Paris Hilton

    Green eyed monsters ;-)

    Lots of them on here methinks.

    Paris cos they're probably all jealous of her as well.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Realities...

    Ok, contractors do very nicely but:

    1) You get totally conflicting advice from the HMCE and the accountancy profession. Accountants don't comprehend paying anything other than the miniumum possible tax - anything else does not compute. Mine put me outside IR35, even though I had specifically asked to be put inside!

    2) Getting contracts reviewed is nice theoretically, but in a tough market if someone offers you a gig starting next week then you're pretty much forced to sign whatever contract the agency gives you. Bouncing the contract between lawyers before the assignment starts isn't always possible.

    PS. I chose Paris - for the stupidity of it all....

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a plonker

    Crikey, this is hardly news.

    "Contractors" have been using this loophole for years to avoid tax - the trick is to not only have the one full-time "customer" like this loser evidently did.

    Either he is thick as sh*t or was badly advised.

    He really should have seen this coming and he gets what he deserves.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Contractors and NI

    Just to clear up how Limited Company contractors pay NI.

    If I pay myself £25k as a contractor, I have to pay PAYE on that £25K, employee NI at 1% AND employers NI at 11% as I am my own employer.

    What some contractors do is pay themselves £6k salary. This attracts 0% PAYE, 0% NI and 0% employers contributions.

    They then pay themselves in dividends. This is effectively, with tax credits, 0% up to £35k then 22.5% over that. Before they can pay themselves dividends though, all profit earned that year attracts corporation tax at 21%.

    So - a contractor could pay taxes at 0% up to £35k then 43% on anything above that. The risk of being a contractor is though to warrant this. If there is no risk, then no reward as it were.

  32. P. Lee
    Thumb Down

    having cake and eating it

    As I understand it, tax law is not congruent with employment law. So you can be deemed an employee for tax purposes, but can't claim rights under employment law.

    No-one is under an obligation to arrange their affairs so the govt can grab the most tax possible, so "if permies have to pay, so should contractors," is just sour grapes. In that case, just charge NI on dividends or merge NI with income tax. I get the feeling IT is targeted because the mainstream populous aren't going to care about nerds who earn more than they do.

    I have to agree with Dek, IR35 was designed to help shield (or at least as a sop to) large IT companies from competition with people who know what they are doing and want to control their own life. I started contracting to support other business ventures. I've found it provides a different outlook and shields me from having to care too much about the internal politics of clients which concerns employees so much. I'm working because I bring value to the client and nobody is doing me any favours.

    A large corporate can put a single person on a client site and pay less tax than a small company doing the same thing. That's just not fair.

    A large company can deduct IT training (which can run at 700-1500 GBP/day) from income before tax, whereas, under IR35, the small company almost certainly has to pay the equivalent of income tax on the training. This really isn't fair.

    Ever seen the price of a set of Cisco books? A large company provides resources to employees and deducts the costs from income before paying tax, not so for the little guy, under IR35.

    If all companies paid the same tax I don't think there would be a problem, but it does seem that not all companies are equal under the law.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    my heart bleeds

    Every permanent employee knows that contractors exploit companies for money. Contractor pay comes from a different budget within the company so although they couldn't possibly afford to pay any of the permanent employees a penny more, or hire another, they are perfectly happy to lay out for 2 or 3 contractors on twice what they would have to pay permanent staff.

    If i paid no tax at all, or NI, it would take me about 15 years to rack up a £99k tax bill!

    the only thing that cheers me up is that my company recently blanket cut all the contractors rates 15% with the condition that if you don't like it, consider this your notice.

  34. Werner McGoole

    If he's an employee

    Then when the contract ends, presumably he'll be entitled to redundancy pay??

    Be interesting to see that go to court and hear the reason why he's not really an employee after all. Can you be in two states at once, like a quantum particle?

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Three options

    I chose the Swiss option too, and it suggested a big, no HUGE question for governments in other countries:

    The Swiss do everything at a MUCH lower rate. Sure, some things you pay for separately (i.e. extra), but in the mean you're well under UK or German tax.

    So, how come everything works here? How come a train more than 5 minutes late is still a scandal? How come that a complete rock on a motorway closes that for max 14 days (and most of that is debris clearing because they don't mock about and immediately blow it up)?

    How come the quality of life is SO much higher?

    Explain that one, and THEN ask for more taxes..

  36. This post has been deleted by its author

  37. This post has been deleted by its author

  38. Paul Johnson
    Boffin

    Dull, dull, dull...

    ...hasn't IR35 been done to death?

    First off, I've been a permie (like 99% of contractors) and a contractor. There are well-documented pros and cons attached to both. Some people prefer 'permanent' employment, others prefer to be contractors. Some people prefer to do one at a certain life stage, and then switch to the other, again for personal reasons. Live and let live, surely?

    IR35 is law. It's been debated, challenged, fought and generally done to death. There is no 'new news' to this story, just a headline-grabbing £99k tax bill.

    The guy had no demonstrable right of substitution (as acid a test as it gets twixt permie and non-permie); was under the direct control of a client permie staff member; and had 'mutuality of obligation' (MOO).

    He clearly fell within the remit of IR35. To try and claim otherwise based on the evidence available is a very, very high-risk strategy. Whoever advised him to take this stance is ill-informed imho. He should have weighed up the facts and coughed up the dough, simple as that.

    Some contractors are 'caught' by IR35 and some are not. This guy clearly was, so why was he taking such a high-risk approach given the sums involved? Greed? Maybe. Bad advice? Maybe.

    I agree with the sentiment that the AA should give him employee benefits though if HMRC are going to treat him as an employee.

  39. Steven Raith
    Stop

    @AC 1558gmt

    "So you are deliberately avoiding the National Insurance payments that everybody else has to pay because you think that for some reason you deserve not to pay it?"

    No, in leiu of having no employees benfits, he is offsetting what he could get from annual leave, sick pay, health care, etc to cover those costs.

    That's why we get paid more per hour than you in the first place - because we take a higher risk with our own personal situation, and higher up the chain [£40k plus equivelant after tax] we have specialist knowledge that is often only required for a single project, or a couple of projects over the course of a few years - such as, at the lower end, in depth AD, domain, GPO and sysprep/WDS knowledge for 500 unit office rollouts that it would take a permanent staffer who was unaware of those skills three months to become proficient in, and only use once.

    Or they could just call me and have those 500 machines rolled out in eight weeks, and then let me go at the end of it. I'd get paid, say 20% more per hour, and claim back the expenses incurred on travel against VAT,and pay corporation tax rates above a certain level to cover the fact that if I get knocked over by a cyclist on the pavement, spend three weeks in hospital and end up being replaced by another contractor with similar skills, then I have some financial backup to tide me over.

    The permy employee, after his training [where the project can't go forward], if he gets knocked down by a cyclist and spends three weeks out, he gets sick pay, and the project has to wait for him again before they can continue, or they can get a contractor in, or spend another few weeks training someone else at their expense.

    In the higher end of the market you will see much higher rates for DBAs and such like, because again, to employ someone permanently with the skills todo that costs more than the cost of getting a contracter in, getting them to set up the infrastructure, and then having your existing permanent support staff to support it once it's up.

    There is a reason for contractors existing - we have a certain mindset and skillset that either isn't found in many permanent staff [due to being at constant risk of being let go - I have been let go with one days notice before after a client decided they couldn't afford to keep me on due to unrelated financial issues] or is just too specialised to expect a permanent staffer to have added to their responsibilities without a substantial pay increase.

    It all makes sense in the end, but don't complain about the party being crap if you don't have the guts to walk in the door in the first place!

    What gets my goat, and I feel this is a legitamate complaint, is where contract staff are used for day to day desktop/network support and BAU operations like running backups etc - these should clearly be permanent positions as they are long term, required posts, and are clearly a get out to prevent companies from having to make pension contributions, offer sick and annual leave, training courses, give a reasonable amount of notice should the job no longer be viable, and other perks that permanent staff take for granted. Hell, I know people who wouldn't get out of bed for a company that didn't offer them subsidised gym membership, 25 days annual leave and a useful training budget.

    We [that is, support contractors] get none of these perks, run the risk of being let go at a much shorter notice period for the most spurious of reasons with no compensation, and are expected to be far more flexible in our work ethic, which is why we command better rates than permanent staff in most cases.

    And after all this? I'm actually looking for a permanent job. I've done five years of contracting at various support levels and I'm just not enjoying it any more - too many risks for not enough financial/job stability or compensation [at my level anyway] - I'm currently looking at doing SysAdmin on a permanent basis for a company I enjoy being in, and should I get it, one of the first things I'll be doing is taking my first real time off [IE more than the enforced holiday season time and bank holidays when you arent needed in] in over five years.

    Because I couldn't afford it.

    Being a contractor isn't the snout-in-the-trough that most permys think it is, certainly not at any wage below £30k for someone single, living on their own with bills to pay...

    Steven R

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just speculating ...

    ... and I may well be wrong, but based on the opening statements

    "An IT contractor has been hit with a £99,000 tax bill"

    ... and ...

    "50 per cent owner and sole director of Dragonfly Consulting"

    ... a likely possibility is that although the guy was the only one generating any income for the company, half the profit was being taken by the other 50% owner. If that person had no other income, then they would be taxed on a lot, if not all, of that income at the lower rate.

    If that is the case, under IR35, I believe that tax on that income will now have to be paid at the higher rate by the chap in question, along with any NI, which is probably why the total owing is so high.

    I feel sorry for the guy, but the moral of the story (IMHO) is that if you take a risk and push the limits of what's acceptable, you do end up flashing all the warning lights on the HMRC dashboards.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    madness......

    Reading this there are one hell of a lot of bitter people in permie roles out there....

    as a contractor you pay both employers and employees NIC, yes, you minimise the amounts, but this is the main problem with IR35, since if your contract is subject to IR35 you PAY MORE than a permie..... yes my permie friends the grass isnt always greener!!!

    The main story here for me is of someone who completely mis-calculated his tax and didn't make sure his contract was IR35 compatible. 99k is a lot to pay, I am assuming its not just the NI but also the HMRC fines that they make you pay.

    I am curious to see if there is a case for him to go back to his "Employer" and get the benefits for the last 3 years.

  42. Chris Williams
    Flame

    Fantastic, excellent, brilliant!

    I am a contractor -- I pay income tax, corporation tax and VAT; I don't use loopholes or faked expenses, off-the-books work or creative accounting and I'm not special in that regard so I'm not complaining about my situation per se.

    I also have more than one client and so tend not to have to worry about IR35, so hopefully I can air my views without being leapt on as a moaner who earns too much money.

    There, the ground cleared of bait to all but the most determined trolls, I'll say that this exemplifies what makes GB PLC such a difficult place to set up and maintain business in. Having contractors on the books tends to suit organisations because there is no commitment to long-term employment (ok, well where is there these days), not to payment of NI, health insurance, sick pay, holiday pay, etc.

    Somebody maintaining themselves as a small business has work to do outside the hours spent in clients' offices, has to keep up with trends in technology, maintain accreditation where necessary, purchase hardware and software, and so the list goes on.

    I won't suggest that there are *no* contractors who don't take the piss, but this just shits in the face of those [government] characters and [tax] officials who claim to want to make this fabulous country of hours attractive for small business.

    Many friends of mine also run businesses, not all in IT, and not all affected by IR35; but the one thing they have in common is the amount of effort and dedication required to maintain even a semi-decent level of income whilst working all the hours God sends, in spite of a constant barrage of bills, charges and other general skimmings off the top.

    Our beloved mayor [of London] and government are wringing their hands at the sight of big corporations upping sticks and heading for more friendly (and undoubtedly sunnier) climes, but when it comes to the countless small businesses and one man bands, it's less "what can we do to make you stay?" than "fuck you, give us your fucking money".

    Let me state once again, in case your finger is poised over the function key programmed with "my heart bleeds for you": I don't think I am any more hard-done-by than others; this is a general observation that, even without the credit crunch (and who could have seen that coming when the country was accumulating enough credit cards to build a small plastic town), things ain't great.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If something like this happened in the US

    The IT industry would collapse. Too many out there have this fantasy that the next generation are computer geniuses (making it difficult for the IT professional), in addition, most of us are only able to get "consistent" (every day praying you won't end up unemployed) work through contract agencies, THEN many businesses are wanting to treat IT guys like maintenance workers (pay included), while having all the knowledge possible the boss could ever need related to IT, like its easily picked up by playing with a computer for a little while.

    I could go on, but don't want my blood pressure to kill me :P

  44. Ishkandar

    @And all the other nearly-freelancers, like footballers?

    That's why they move clubs every two years or so !! Obvious when you think about it !!

  45. Tom

    That should cheer a lot of employees up

    I worked in IT for 25 years - I have given up due to British management.

    It looks as if this is one less excuse for them not to manage any more. I used to be amazed that work I could do in a week got sent to contractors and took months to do was somehow cheaper than if I did it. Always something about liabilities which always cost less than the contractor in the end.

    What is it about this country that management seems to be hell bent on preventing anyone actually enjoying their job?

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Labour wants the UK to fail

    it is that simple.

    A country of failures, that is their legacy, and the UK just plundered from abroad.

    It has got to the point where most people are looking to leave.

    You cannot do business in the UK, it is too awkward, and there are too many parasites in the system.

  47. Martin Usher
    Unhappy

    Welcome to the USA

    Software contractors have been singled out for this kind of special tax treatment in the US for nearly 20 years. Sad but true. Back in the good old days as a little one man business you could deduct, deduct, deduct -- life was good. Unfortuantely you are really just fiddling the tax so they eventually catch up with you.

    Its a bit sad that the UK tax people have introduced this by legal action that just clobbers some individual rather than publishing their new rules. They've also been a bit slow to catch on and they're obviously not up to speed on how you deal with this situation to your (tax) advantage....all grist to the mill, I suppose.

  48. Ishkandar

    @Overseas employer

    Not being a tax expert, I can't say with absolute certainty that what I think is right. However, I think that in your case, the first and most important fact is that you work on deliverables (i.e. discrete units of work) and not in an on-going task/function. This makes all the difference between being a contractor/supplier and being an "employee" as the person in this article is judged to be !!

  49. Richard

    But we DO have something like this in the US

    When I was an independent contractor, I paid my social security tax,

    and then I paid it again as a "self employer", not to mention the other

    taxes. Now maybe if I had set up a corportation I could have paid some

    lesser income taxes, but there are many other taxes and paperwork that

    did not make sense to someone earning what I was earning at the time.

    (Good rate per hour, but not a whole bunch of hours during the month.)

    Oh, I also got stiffed three times. Twice by companies where the lawyer

    fees would far exceed what I could recover, plus once by a company that

    went belly up, and since I was not an employee, my "invoice" went to the

    bottom of the stack and I ended up with nothing.

  50. yeah, right.
    Pirate

    @ DaveE

    Yeah, you're PAYE. And you get vacation, benefits, and all sorts of legal protection including sick time and mandatory notice periods. Meanwhile, the IT contractor gets FUCK ALL in terms of legal protection, and can be terminated with 5 minutes notice. So why the hell, since the contractor is taking ALL the risk, should they also shoulder ALL the taxes involved? I hope the erstwhile "employer" is also being hit up for back-pay, vacation time, sick time, and employer contributions? No? My, how surprising that it's the guy who can't afford the expensive lawyer that's getting shafted.

    Fucking glad I left the UK at this point. Saw the writing on the wall a while back and decided that the UK just wants IT workers to be slaves. Screw that.

This topic is closed for new posts.