Conor:
Can still be Ltd but it would be within IR35 so Morans would have to deduct tax and NI at source just the same as someone on PAYE.
Open to ideas, but how can the operator deduct NI /tax from a limited company, which is the front for the driver?
Go as a Ltd Co yet simply providing themselves as a driver also creates other issues fir the operator- it’s difficult to say the operator has continuous and effective management if a limited Co! When in truth they should be an employee
What’s the difference between a driver hiring himself out through his own Ltd Co, and an agency hiring a driver out?
Star down under.:
What’s the difference between a driver hiring himself out through his own Ltd Co, and an agency hiring a driver out?
“Substitution” is likely a factor.
If a haulier asks an agency for a driver they dont get much say whether Joe or Joan turn up. They may have favourites but they accept any that are qualified. If they ask Joe Ltd to drive tomorrow, but Joe wants a day off, can he just send in Joan instead? An agency can substitute one driver for another. An employee cant.
Joe Ltd may suggest another driver, but that isnt the same as just substituting one driver for another. Joe wouldnt expect to pay Joan, (normally) she would be paid by the haulier, she becomes the temp employee of the haulier.
An agency invoices the haulier, and they then pay whoever the agency decided to send in.
Franglais:
Star down under.:
What’s the difference between a driver hiring himself out through his own Ltd Co, and an agency hiring a driver out?“Substitution” is likely a factor.
If a haulier asks an agency for a driver they don
t get much say whether Joe or Joan turn up. They may have favourites but they accept any that are qualified. If they ask Joe Ltd to drive tomorrow, but Joe wants a day off, can he just send in Joan instead? An agency can substitute one driver for another. An employee cant.Joe Ltd may suggest another driver, but that isn
t the same as just substituting one driver for another. Joe wouldnt expect to pay Joan, (normally) she would be paid by the haulier, she becomes the temp employee of the haulier.An agency invoices the haulier, and they then pay whoever the agency decided to send in.
But what’s to stop Joe Driver setting himself up as a Ltd. agency, with himself as the only employee, his agency may only have one customer.
Star down under.:
Franglais:
Star down under.:
What’s the difference between a driver hiring himself out through his own Ltd Co, and an agency hiring a driver out?“Substitution” is likely a factor.
If a haulier asks an agency for a driver they don
t get much say whether Joe or Joan turn up. They may have favourites but they accept any that are qualified. If they ask Joe Ltd to drive tomorrow, but Joe wants a day off, can he just send in Joan instead? An agency can substitute one driver for another. An employee cant.Joe Ltd may suggest another driver, but that isn
t the same as just substituting one driver for another. Joe wouldnt expect to pay Joan, (normally) she would be paid by the haulier, she becomes the temp employee of the haulier.An agency invoices the haulier, and they then pay whoever the agency decided to send in.
But what’s to stop Joe Driver setting himself up as a Ltd. agency, with himself as the only employee, his agency may only have one customer.
If that is only to hide his being an employee, see answer y2day:
“Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law”
And as Zac has pointed out a driver needs to be an employee, so the haulier can safeguard their O-Licence.
The haulier cant call someone an employee and give precise instructions to them, and simultaneously call them a contractor with autonomy. If HMRC decide that the correct tax isnt being paid then they could come after all parties involved.
Companies don`t want to liable if Joe Ltd is on a fiddle. Maybe Joe is totally honest, but if not, then the haulier could be deemed the employer and they too will get a bill and fine.
Franglais:
Star down under.:
Franglais:
Star down under.:
What’s the difference between a driver hiring himself out through his own Ltd Co, and an agency hiring a driver out?“Substitution” is likely a factor.
If a haulier asks an agency for a driver they don
t get much say whether Joe or Joan turn up. They may have favourites but they accept any that are qualified. If they ask Joe Ltd to drive tomorrow, but Joe wants a day off, can he just send in Joan instead? An agency can substitute one driver for another. An employee cant.Joe Ltd may suggest another driver, but that isn
t the same as just substituting one driver for another. Joe wouldnt expect to pay Joan, (normally) she would be paid by the haulier, she becomes the temp employee of the haulier.An agency invoices the haulier, and they then pay whoever the agency decided to send in.
But what’s to stop Joe Driver setting himself up as a Ltd. agency, with himself as the only employee, his agency may only have one customer.
If that is only to hide his being an employee, see answer y2day:
“Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.
It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce this advantage. It involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law”
And as Zac has pointed out a driver needs to be an employee, so the haulier can safeguard their O-Licence.The haulier can
t call someone an employee and give precise instructions to them, and simultaneously call them a contractor with autonomy. If HMRC decide that the correct tax isnt being paid then they could come after all parties involved.
Companiesdon`t want to liable if Joe Ltd is on a fiddle. Maybe Joe is totally honest, but if not, then the haulier could be deemed the employer and they too will get a bill and fine.
So in the real world how many of those horrible tax avoiding truck drivers have been landed large tax bills and fines retrospectively due to disguised employment regarding IR35? A big fat zero that’s how many. Such horrendous tax avoidance yet HMRC can’t be arsed or can’t afford to chase every individual concerned. Such terrible tax avoidance according to HMRC yet retrospectively have turned a blind eye.
robbo99.:
So in the real world how many of those horrible tax avoiding truck drivers have been landed large tax bills and fines retrospectively due to disguised employment regarding IR35? A big fat zero that’s how many. Such horrendous tax avoidance yet HMRC can’t be arsed or can’t afford to chase every individual concerned. Such terrible tax avoidance according to HMRC yet retrospectively have turned a blind eye.
Are you saying it is like doing 35 in a 30 limit?
Maybe it is. Maybe one can “get away with it”.
But like all such things it is great, right up to the moment it ain`t.
I do agree with your previous post that such things may not be specifically banned etc. But that is the way (it seems to me) it is.
HMRC do have the power to look at summat and say:
“We think that is a fiddle. Therefore it is a fiddle”
…“If you want to argue we`ll see you in court”.
In the past there have been those who played fast and loose with the system. Im sure there are also those who dont intend to do so.
Like speed cameras set up to catch those doing 60 in a 30 they will also see those doing 35.
Franglais:
robbo99.:
So in the real world how many of those horrible tax avoiding truck drivers have been landed large tax bills and fines retrospectively due to disguised employment regarding IR35? A big fat zero that’s how many. Such horrendous tax avoidance yet HMRC can’t be arsed or can’t afford to chase every individual concerned. Such terrible tax avoidance according to HMRC yet retrospectively have turned a blind eye.Are you saying it is like doing 35 in a 30 limit?
Maybe it is. Maybe one can “get away with it”.
But like all such things it is great, right up to the moment it ain`t.I do agree with your previous post that such things may not be specifically banned etc. But that is the way (it seems to me) it is.
HMRC do have the power to look at summat and say:
“We think that is a fiddle. Therefore it is a fiddle”
…“If you want to argue we`ll see you in court”.In the past there have been those who played fast and loose with
Like speed cameras set up to catch those doing 60 in a 30 they will also see those doing 35.
Not saying anything at all to compare exceeding the speed limit and tax avoidance, speeding is breaking the law, tax avoidance isn’t breaking any laws.
robbo99.:
Not saying anything at all to compare exceeding the speed limit and tax avoidance, speeding is breaking the law, tax avoidance isn’t breaking any laws.
Tax avoidance is not law breaking, `tis true.
The argument is about disguised employment, ie evasion.
…The Traffic Commissioners seem to say that in order to retain control of their operations the O-Licence holder must control their drivers. Hence they look like employees.
…HMRC say that to be self employed OR a contractor, Ltd etc, then they must have control of their work. They aren`t under the control of the haulier.
…The two seem incompatible.
Franglais:
robbo99.:
Not saying anything at all to compare exceeding the speed limit and tax avoidance, speeding is breaking the law, tax avoidance isn’t breaking any laws.Tax avoidance is not law breaking, `tis true.
The argument is about disguised employment, ie evasion.…The Traffic Commissioners seem to say that in order to retain control of their operations the O-Licence holder must control their drivers. Hence they look like employees.
…HMRC say that to be self employed OR a contractor, Ltd etc, then they must have control of their work. They aren`t under the control of the haulier.
…The two seem incompatible.
Going back to the original post, if an individual is set up as a Ltd company then provided the correct tax and NI are deducted which now is comparable to an employee then that arrangement is ok, that’s why the job advert is legitimate.
I’m afraid your claim of tax evasion for disguised employment is incorrect, tax evasion is illegal, just remind me of how many people that fall foul of IR35 legislation (disguised employment) are prosecuted? IR35 comes under tax avoidance, tax avoidance is legal but mired in grey areas that are subject to differing opinions. Goodnight.