Honestscott76:
Sorry but I cannot see how your view of the two is any different to the other, in law.
It’s merely your own perception that “employment agencies are naturally thought of as being employees in employment, not as buccaneering small businessmen”.
I’m afraid I disagree with your view, as both act on behalf of employers in that they supply ‘personal services’.
I’m not sure I follow you. The difference between “service” and “services” is just a recasting of the question of whether someone is working in the capacity of an employee or a businessman.
That is, whether something is service or services is not an attribute of the work rendered, but of the relationship between the parties.
Honestscott76:
Sorry but I cannot see how your view of the two is any different to the other, in law.
It’s merely your own perception that “employment agencies are naturally thought of as being employees in employment, not as buccaneering small businessmen”.
I’m afraid I disagree with your view, as both act on behalf of employers in that they supply ‘personal services’.
I’m not sure I follow you. The difference between “service” and “services” is just a recasting of the question of whether someone is working in the capacity of an employee or a businessman.
That is, whether something is service or services is not an attribute of the work rendered, but of the relationship between the parties.
I feel this is where we have misconceptions of the meaning. A service or services, as you put it should never be deemed as a ‘relationship’, it’s simply a service.
However should a service take up the majority of the working year with the same client, this could be argued as a working relationship.
For clarity, My limited company supplies a service to various clients throughout the year. Perfectly legitimate and legal.
albion:
There’s some mighty fine creative accounting going on there Scott. I think you are being over optimistic about what you will get away with in expenses for someone that doesn’t have a truck.
But what would I know, 26 years of a proper limited company paying employees, nah, nothing.
Franglais , there’s nothing wrong with looking at the moral aspect. That 100k pays for three experienced nurses, three teachers, all the stuff we need. People who think they are being clever by ducking tax are takers pure and simple.
Albion- I totally agree that the moral aspects of paying tax are important, but wasn’t looking to split this particular thread down that route.
Honestscott76:
Unfortunately tools cannot work themselves without the skills of the tradesmen, the same way a truck cannot work without the skills of a qualified driver. It’s the personal service of the person or tradesmen which make the job a complete service.
[zb] all to do with his tools!
The “tools” qualification might be better recast as “who has the business capital?”. That’s what it’s really about.
A truck is a capital asset, and the driver’s essential role is to operate one. If the capital asset doesn’t rest in the hands of the driver, then one of the markers of the independence of his supposed business is absent.
The owner could drive his own assets. The issue arises when the business purchases more ‘assets’, then it requires the ‘personal services’ of someone else. The business may either choose to employ a person or use a self employed person to operate the ‘asset’, both are perfectly legal. [emoji6]
The business may choose whether to employ someone or hire another businessman. But a person does not become a businessman, and work in the capacity of a businessman, simply by declaration.
No, this is subject to regulatory processes. For instance; the employee would require an employment contract and the businessman would have a Limited company which is regulated by Companies House under the relevant act of law. These are both legal practices.
Honestscott76:
If you hire a gardener and give him or her instructions on how you want your garden but he or she uses your mower and tools, is he self employed or do you have to employ him?
He could well be your employee. For example, you hire a 17 year old lad to run your mower around, and you stand there to supervise and control. Most people would refuse to accept that he’s acting in the capacity of a self employed businessman, but instead that he resembles a domestic servant.
Both examples you highlight are perfectly legal. Again, it’s merely your opinion that ‘most people’ would refuse to accept he’s acting in the capacity of a self employed businessman. As long as the gardener satisfies the relevant regulations, it’s perfectly legitimate to conduct work as a self employed businessman.
As for supervision and control, this is irrelevant. I wouldn’t personally wouldn’t seek to hire the services of someone who needs supervision and or control. I suspect ‘most’ wouldn’t either but that’s merely my opinion.
Let’s not complicate matters by using ‘working girl’ instead of ‘■■■■■■ girl’. To clarify, I perceive working girls are prostitutes and escorts as legal service.
In my experience, there is no hierarchical relationship when hiring any services. Should you start telling the person what to do and making attempts to control the person, surly they tell you where to go?
Big Truck:
You need to read the article in Truckstop News issue 335 13th June.
BIG article on SE/Ltd drivers working for haulage companies driving THEIR trucks.
“Loophole” is closing and HMRC are coming and BIG tax bills back dated a few yrs are coming too!!!
“Public enquiry” On going and HMRC will have their pound of flesh as it’s NOT your decision if your SE/Ltd company driving another man’s truck,
your simply a PAYE employee!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Tosh!
So your saying the article in Truckstop News is a load of lies then!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I have a limited company and work for that company (PAYE) as director. The limited company then uses my ‘personal services’ as a HGV driver to conduct driver services for various haulage companies and employment agencies.
It’s perfectly legal and above board to sell your ‘personal Services’ and charge a fee. It’s no different to an electrician, bricklayer, plasterer etc. HGV driving is no different.
For HMRC to outlaw this practice they would have to abolish employment agencies.
Somehow I don’t think that will ever happen!
An Electrician/Plumber etc all use their OWN tools!!!
What tools does a truck driver use??
Why can’t every factory/service/construction worker in the country not opt for SE/Ltd and save themselves a fortune in tax/NI etc!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Unfortunately tools cannot work themselves without the skills of the tradesmen, the same way a truck cannot work without the skills of a qualified driver. It’s the personal service of the person or tradesmen which make the job a complete service.
[zb] all to do with his tools!
You are deluded!!!
Have you put your personal circumstances against that questionnaire a few posts back??
As plenty of others have said you need to own/insure/“plan it’s use”
a “tool” I.E. the truck you are driving!!!
Don’t matter if ST or single employee of your Ltd company.
You may be paying all your taxes/NI but don’t mean HMRC condone the practice!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I’m not Deluded. Answer me this;
If you hire a gardener and give him or her instructions on how you want your garden but he or she uses your mower and tools, is he self employed or do you have to employ him?
You really are scraping the barrel now!!!
What ST/Ltd Gardener is ever gonna run a viable business if he arrived for work everywhere with no tools and had to use the customers!!![emoji28]
Big Truck:
You need to read the article in Truckstop News issue 335 13th June.
BIG article on SE/Ltd drivers working for haulage companies driving THEIR trucks.
“Loophole” is closing and HMRC are coming and BIG tax bills back dated a few yrs are coming too!!!
“Public enquiry” On going and HMRC will have their pound of flesh as it’s NOT your decision if your SE/Ltd company driving another man’s truck,
your simply a PAYE employee!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Tosh!
So your saying the article in Truckstop News is a load of lies then!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I have a limited company and work for that company (PAYE) as director. The limited company then uses my ‘personal services’ as a HGV driver to conduct driver services for various haulage companies and employment agencies.
It’s perfectly legal and above board to sell your ‘personal Services’ and charge a fee. It’s no different to an electrician, bricklayer, plasterer etc. HGV driving is no different.
For HMRC to outlaw this practice they would have to abolish employment agencies.
Somehow I don’t think that will ever happen!
An Electrician/Plumber etc all use their OWN tools!!!
What tools does a truck driver use??
Why can’t every factory/service/construction worker in the country not opt for SE/Ltd and save themselves a fortune in tax/NI etc!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Unfortunately tools cannot work themselves without the skills of the tradesmen, the same way a truck cannot work without the skills of a qualified driver. It’s the personal service of the person or tradesmen which make the job a complete service.
[zb] all to do with his tools!
You are deluded!!!
Have you put your personal circumstances against that questionnaire a few posts back??
As plenty of others have said you need to own/insure/“plan it’s use”
a “tool” I.E. the truck you are driving!!!
Don’t matter if ST or single employee of your Ltd company.
You may be paying all your taxes/NI but don’t mean HMRC condone the practice!!!
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I’m not Deluded. Answer me this;
If you hire a gardener and give him or her instructions on how you want your garden but he or she uses your mower and tools, is he self employed or do you have to employ him?
You really are scraping the barrel now!!!
What ST/Ltd Gardener is ever gonna run a viable business if he arrived for work everywhere with no tools and had to use the customers!!![emoji28]
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
It’s a simplified and perfectly good example. Whether it’s viable is another thing entirely.
Big Truck:
“Big Truck Gardening SERVICES Ltd” is a new start up business just me as single employee.
I’m go round my end of town and cut customers lawns/hedges.
Ain’t gonna use sweet FA of my own lawnmowers/clippers/bushwackers etc just gonna use my clients.
HMRC would think I’m a right frigging joker!!![emoji28]
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Regardless of what HMRC think, it’s perfectly legal. A Limited costs gardener. [emoji1319]
Likewise, an HGV driver using his clients vehicle, it’s all perfectly legal and above board. Of course, HMRC would prefer PAYE but are powerless to change the law.
albion:
There’s some mighty fine creative accounting going on there Scott. I think you are being over optimistic about what you will get away with in expenses for someone that doesn’t have a truck.
But what would I know, 26 years of a proper limited company paying employees, nah, nothing.
Franglais , there’s nothing wrong with looking at the moral aspect. That 100k pays for three experienced nurses, three teachers, all the stuff we need. People who think they are being clever by ducking tax are takers pure and simple.
Albion- I totally agree that the moral aspects of paying tax are important, but wasn’t looking to split this particular thread down that route.
Big Truck:
“Big Truck Gardening SERVICES Ltd” is a new start up business just me as single employee.
I’m go round my end of town and cut customers lawns/hedges.
Ain’t gonna use sweet FA of my own lawnmowers/clippers/bushwackers etc just gonna use my clients.
HMRC would think I’m a right frigging joker!!![emoji28]
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Regardless of what HMRC think, it’s perfectly legal. A Limited costs gardener. [emoji1319]
Likewise, an HGV driver using his clients vehicle, it’s all perfectly legal and above board. Of course, HMRC would prefer PAYE but are powerless to change the law.
We got there in the end.
I would be asking for “guidance” from HMRC before I started I think I know what they’d say and it defo won’t be:
Honestscott76:
… it’s all perfectly legal and above board. Of course, HMRC would prefer PAYE but are powerless to change the law.
We got there in the end.
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell, this is actually written into the law of the land.
You are right that ‘some’ at HMRC would prefer this to change and there has been long winded, multi agency consultations running for several years now. As far as I can see from my observations… this has pretty much run its course and isn’t being progressed any further for now.
What the Government cannot get away from is that this situation involves many thousands of people across several lines of work.
There’s also the issue of choice. You may not want a job… you may not like having to be told when you must work etc. You might just prefer doing the odd bit of driving or gardening for that matter.
It may come as a surprise to some here, that HMRC use self employed Chartered Accountants on contracts to investigate companies on these very issues…
Hospitals could not operate if it was not for self employed consultants etc… the range of jobs is massive.
Where HMRC appear to have been particularly aggressive is where they have recieved compaints of worker exploitation or where there’s an obvious tax evasion issue - and good on them for that.
The OP, is an example that is quite different, he has been told by the truck owner that he will only take him on - on a self employed basis. Without doubt the truck owner is breaking the rules.
What I would advise is that he gets what he can from it and from the start either has no contract, or a contract that states he is not to suffer any financial loss if during any part of the agreed term of SE - if he (the OP) is forced to cease providing a self employed driver service - due to any reason beyond his control. He could indicate to the truck owner this might be such as illness or injury.
Then he could get the qualifications he need… then speak covertly and in confidence to HMRC about his predicament… HMRC will intervene and it’s game set and match. All the OP has to do is make sure he pays his dues at the appropriate times.
Honestscott76:
… it’s all perfectly legal and above board. Of course, HMRC would prefer PAYE but are powerless to change the law.
We got there in the end.
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell, this is actually written into the law of the land.
You are right that ‘some’ at HMRC would prefer this to change and there has been long winded, multi agency consultations running for several years now. As far as I can see from my observations… this has pretty much run its course and isn’t being progressed any further for now.
What the Government cannot get away from is that this situation involves many thousands of people across several lines of work.
There’s also the issue of choice. You may not want a job… you may not like having to be told when you must work etc. You might just prefer doing the odd bit of driving or gardening for that matter.
It may come as a surprise to some here, that HMRC use self employed Chartered Accountants on contracts to investigate companies on these very issues…
Hospitals could not operate if it was not for self employed consultants etc… the range of jobs is massive.
Where HMRC appear to have been particularly aggressive is where they have recieved compaints of worker exploitation or where there’s an obvious tax evasion issue - and good on them for that.
The OP, is an example that is quite different, he has been told by the truck owner that he will only take him on - on a self employed basis. Without doubt the truck owner is breaking the rules.
What I would advise is that he gets what he can from it and from the start either has no contract, or a contract that states he is not to suffer any financial loss if during any part of the agreed term of SE - if he (the OP) is forced to cease providing a self employed driver service - due to any reason beyond his control. He could indicate to the truck owner this might be such as illness or injury.
Then he could get the qualifications he need… then speak covertly and in confidence to HMRC about his predicament… HMRC will intervene and it’s game set and match. All the OP has to do is make sure he pays his dues at the appropriate times.
Much easier using a keyboard… home sweet home.
I think if you ask Gary Barlow, Alex Ferguson etc their accountants told them it was legal. However didn’t end up like that in the end…
Rjan:
The business may choose whether to employ someone or hire another businessman. But a person does not become a businessman, and work in the capacity of a businessman, simply by declaration.
No, this is subject to regulatory processes. For instance; the employee would require an employment contract and the businessman would have a Limited company which is regulated by Companies House under the relevant act of law. These are both legal practices.
A businessman does not need to have a limited company, and simply being a director of a limited company does not make one the businessman in the relationship. It’s like the joke about the wife who wears the trousers in the marriage. It is not the physical donning of trousers that conveys power and privilege on the wearer.
Rjan:
The business may choose whether to employ someone or hire another businessman. But a person does not become a businessman, and work in the capacity of a businessman, simply by declaration.
No, this is subject to regulatory processes. For instance; the employee would require an employment contract and the businessman would have a Limited company which is regulated by Companies House under the relevant act of law. These are both legal practices.
A businessman does not need to have a limited company, and simply being a director of a limited company does not make one the businessman in the relationship. It’s like the joke about the wife who wears the trousers in the marriage. It is not the physical donning of trousers that conveys power and privilege on the wearer.
Honestscott76:
If you hire a gardener and give him or her instructions on how you want your garden but he or she uses your mower and tools, is he self employed or do you have to employ him?
He could well be your employee. For example, you hire a 17 year old lad to run your mower around, and you stand there to supervise and control. Most people would refuse to accept that he’s acting in the capacity of a self employed businessman, but instead that he resembles a domestic servant.
Both examples you highlight are perfectly legal.
Nobody is saying anything is illegal. The question you asked was whether the person you hired, more resembles your employee or a self-employed businessman.
Again, it’s merely your opinion that ‘most people’ would refuse to accept he’s acting in the capacity of a self employed businessman.
As long as the gardener satisfies the relevant regulations, it’s perfectly legitimate to conduct work as a self employed businessman.
What regulations? Yes, a person can run a legitimate gardening business. But you cast the situation as one where you provide all the gardening equipment, and to me no reasonable tradesman typically adopts his customers tools as opposed to his own with which he is familiar.
I’ve slightly embellished the situation you gave, by characterising the person hired as a neighbourhood lad as opposed to a professional found in the Yellow Pages, in order to accentuate that there’s a difference in authority, but only to make the point that, yes, a gardener could well be your employee.
I certainly think that, if the lad you hired chopped his fingers off with the mower, or somebody else’s, you’d probably find yourself in very deep lumber indeed. Whereas if a professional gardener did the same, it would be on his head and not yours.
As for supervision and control, this is irrelevant. I wouldn’t personally wouldn’t seek to hire the services of someone who needs supervision and or control. I suspect ‘most’ wouldn’t either but that’s merely my opinion.
The question is not whether the person hired needs supervision and control - nobody sets out to hire the Chuckle brothers to do a day’s work. The question is whether you are in charge - who has authority? That is a relevant test of whether you are the customer or the employer.
Let’s not complicate matters by using ‘working girl’ instead of ‘■■■■■■ girl’. To clarify, I perceive working girls are prostitutes and escorts as legal service.
In my experience, there is no hierarchical relationship when hiring any services. Should you start telling the person what to do and making attempts to control the person, surly they tell you where to go?
Nothing turns on whether we’re talking about prostitutes or escorts. It is like you say, there is perceived to be no hierarchical relationship - the average client has no authority over the ■■■■■■. There is also the point that the client deals as a consumer in these contexts, and doesn’t perform any organisational role.
If the client was Hugh Hefner and the context was the ■■■■■■■ Mansion, one might think differently.
Big Truck:
What ST/Ltd Gardener is ever gonna run a viable business if he arrived for work everywhere with no tools and had to use the customers!!![emoji28]
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
It’s a simplified and perfectly good example. Whether it’s viable is another thing entirely.
I suggest that perceptions of “viability” are highly relevant, because it’s another way of saying that nobody seriously believes that a man who offers only to operate other people’s mowers, can be running any sort of independent business for himself. The same is true of truck drivers - nobody seriously believes that the man at the wheel is an independent businessman!