The recent Supreme Court judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others (UKSC 41) backed a group of self-employed car valets who worked for Autoclenz and argued that clauses in their contracts did not reflect their actual working arrangements. In spite of clauses on mutuality and substitution, the court ruled that they were obliged to provide the services personally. The legal dispute started in 2007.

The Supreme Court decision establishes a precedent that the conduct of the contractual parties could override the written terms.

In its ruling the Court said decided that the contracts did not reflect the true agreement between the parties and that in reality “four essential contractual terms were agreed: (1) that the valeters would perform the services defined in the contract for Autoclenz within a reasonable time and in a good and workmanlike manner; (2) that the valeters would be paid for that work; (3) that the valeters were obliged to carry out the work offered to them and Autoclenz undertook to offer work; and (4) that the valeters must personally do the work and could not provide a substitute to do so.”

This case highlights the importance for all parties to ensure that they have seen the contract of services and agree that it reflects the true working practices of everyone involved. The court stated that only one party needed to claim that a clause in the contract did not reflect their intentions in order for the clause to be considered a sham.

If you have any self employed people contact us today to ensure that your current arrangements reflect this new opinion, on 0800 917 9176

Elaine Richardson, a self-employed IT contractor working through her own limited company, ECR Consulting,  for Vertex Data Science was facing an IR35 bill in excess of £50,000 but in the latest IR35 Judgment  HMRC have been thwarted again.

The defense in this case stated that this case goes to prove that contracting through a single person limited company is a prudent and sensible method of providing freelance services, and not just about disguising employment.  The Tribunal found “it is clear to us that ECR is a genuine business and therefore not a target of the IR35 legislation.”

EICG are offering a menu of Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) reviews for your company at special rates until 30 June 2011

HMRC are being very proactive in this area, even for companies that have previously been under the radar. You could be caught out whether this be via an employer compliance review, an employment status review or an in year business records check. The costs of getting things wrong can be monumental, not just the penalties but also the time taken out of your business and the resulting stress that this can cause.

So why wait, choose your review option below and contact us today on0800 9179176 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0800 9179176 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

• Employment status review of your subcontractors and associated paperwork
• Review of all aspects of your Construction Industry compliance
• Business record checks
• Full Employer compliance review, as HMRC would conduct them

Make your company the one that HMRC walks away from rather than feasting on your hard earned profits.

In order to maintain the confidentiality of a contractor’s monthly return HMRC have introduced further security checks to ensure that the corrections made are proper to a particular return and that the revised details have been recorded correctly.

What does this mean?

If you telephone the CIS contact centre you may be asked for other details shown on the original return that now requires amendment. You should therefore ensure that you have a copy of the original return before making the phone call.

If you send an amended return to Netherton then you may be contacted by the CIS centre in Newry asking you to confirm the period to which the corrections/additions relate.

If you write a letter to the CIS centre in Newry, once again you may be contacted either by telephone or in writing asking for confirmation of the amendments.

Very quietly HMRC have announced that there is a new CIS penalty regime being brought in.

From October 2011, the penalties for late or non-filing of a contractor’s monthly return within the Construction Industry Scheme are changing.

The first return falling within the new penalty regime will be the return for the month ending 5 November 2011.

The following penalties will apply to that return and all subsequent months’ returns that are not filed or filed late:

• A fixed penalty of £100 immediately a return is late.
• A second, fixed penalty of £200, two months after the filing date if the return is still outstanding.
• If the return is still outstanding six months after the issue of the first penalty, a tax-geared penalty is charged which is the greater of £300 or 5% of the amount of deductions shown on the return.
• If the return is still outstanding twelve months after the issue of the first penalty, a further tax-geared penalty is charged which is the greater of £300 or 5% of the amount of deductions shown on the return. Higher levels of penalty apply where, as a result of the failure to file the return on time, information has been deliberately withheld.

Interest will be chargeable on any penalty paid late.

The legislation for the change is at schedule 55 Finance Act 2009.

Paragraph 13 of Schedule 55 to Finance Act 2009 introduces a penalty capping provision. The fixed penalties within the capping period will not exceed a maximum of £3,000. The capping period starts on the day of commencement (the date the contractor advises HMRC that they will first pay, or have first paid, a subcontractor) until the date they first file a CIS monthly return. Tax-geared penalties of 5% of the amount of deductions shown on the returns will also apply in the capping period where the return is submitted over 6 and 12 months late. There will be no fixed minimum charge of £300 when the capping period applies.

Mistakes can be expensive so contact EICG on 0800 917 9176 to find out about our Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) reviews

HMRC are now out and about big style as they have told their Inspectors to bring in as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, which is not really surprising given the current economic environment.  There will be pressure to settle long running full enquiry cases and Inspectors will be encouraged to take up aspect cases (these are as they sound, looking at a particular aspect of a business, eg employment status, entertaining expenditure etc ) which are likely to be settled more quickly to optimise the tax yield in the current fiscal year.

Interestingly, it would appear that the new “Cross Tax” enquiry framework, involving PAYE/NIC, Corporation Tax, VAT etc is being shelved as it is slowing up the enquiry process so Inspectors will be reverting to just working their particular area

It has now been a year since HMRC introduced the internal review system which was intended to be a bridge between the case worker and the First Tier Tribunal in cases such as tax investigations, employment status cases and HMRC penalties to name but a few areas. Initially viewed with suspicion, and still to a certain extent, HMRC have published figures on the process to date.

Unrepresented tax payers have been relatively enthusiastic to use the system, probably on the basis of what have they got to lose – this made up 81% of those using the system. There are however strong distinctions to be drawn between automatic penalty cases where approximately half were cancelled compared with those that are far more substantiative. Even the latter category showed that about 25% were either cancelled or varied – so there is a definite moral here – don’t reject the internal review system out of hand it can be a useful process if dealt with correctly you just need to make sure the person dealing with your case understands the process. So, if you need advice call us today on 0800 917 9176

For all those delightfully naive people out there who have not really come across the relentless, never ending and ultimately for what – type of tax investigation, then welcome to Larkstar. This case lasted SEVEN YEARS and included a Tribunal and a High Court Hearing, then back to the Tribunal all costing millions of taxpayers money (remember we all pay for HMRC and their actions). The result was that the case was closed with HMRC getting approximately £10, yes £10 it’s NOT a typo, for each year of the investigation – this is a disgraceful waste of money and it doesn’t even touch on the stress that it has caused the individual in question, Alan Brill. Just imagine SEVEN years of your life taken up with a constant fight against HMRC and for what ultimately £70!!!

At last the results of the consultation exercise into false self employment in the construction industry have been published and we have summarised the more salient details below:

• Nothing is going to happen yet and nothing will happen until the industry picks itself up, certainly not before the Olympics in 2012

• The simplistic approach of the government having three tests has been widely criticised and they have conceded that further consultation will be required – no surprises there then

• There is also a lot of criticism that any simplistic approach away from case law is only being geared at the Construction Industry, what about other industry sectors?

• The government have indicated that they will look into organisations purporting to get round the rules such as umbrella companies, managed service companies and labour style agencies – this type of compliance is no bad thing as they are so blatantly flouting the rules and taunting HMRC (never a good idea for them or more importantly their clients)

• Interestingly, the Trade Unions aren’t happy as they could potentially see a lot of new members but the government proposals actually mean that although subcontractors would suffer PAYE/NIC they would not be regarded as “employees” but “deemed employees” which means that they would have no employment rights or benefits. This has been widely criticised because it would actually create “false employment” and the employment law side of this has not really been addressed

• There is a General Election due, probably around 6^th May, which could mean a different party in power. The Conservatives have not indicated that they will pursue what is effectively a witch hunt in the Construction Industry

So if you have self employed subcontractors and would benefit from an employment status review call us on 0800 917 9176

Quick question for you:

When is a Tax Health Plan, nothing to do with medical cover?

When it’s the name of a tax investigation programme against medical professionals. Yes HMRC are back looking at NHS Trusts and medical professionals in general but this time round what they have done is some pilot work to ascertain what monies they could make from such an exercise and then based on this rather then roll it out nationwide, as they have done in the past, they have instead gone for the THP route. Basically, it means that any individual who thinks they may not have declared all their income from sources such as referrals and commissions have a limited window to make a full disclosure to HMRC. HMRC have issued information notices to various private medical providers such as BUPA, Sun Life etc to obtain details of any payments made – so is this the way forward, small local pilot exercises followed by “disclosure” opportunities – perhaps but in the case of the medical profession, HMRC have a favourite target of theirs, whether it be employment status, home to work travel or expenses generally, very interesting when you consider the whole question of MPs expenses and HMRC’s apparent non interest!

Keep reading for further updates