header-logo header-logo

31 October 2018
Issue: 7815 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Hammond’s IR35 tax foray

Budget clampdown on personal service company consultants

Private sector businesses have been advised to think carefully about whether the Chancellor’s IR35 budget raid applies to them—in many cases, it may not.

Chancellor Philip Hammond’s budget this week extended to the private sector an existing tax on public sector organisations that hire consultants and self-employed people who would otherwise be an employee. Large and medium sized businesses with more than 250 employees will be obliged, from April 2020, to deduct tax from the pay of consultants who work through personal service companies.

The aim of the tax reform is to stop people avoiding tax by using the shield of a personal service company to hide their employment status.

However, James Medhurst, employment law solicitor at Fieldfisher, said: ‘Crucially, the changes only apply if the relationship with the consultant resembles an employment relationship.

‘Many businesses are naturally worried that, if they start to make these deductions too widely, many of their consultants will defect to their competitors and, therefore, this is a decision which should not be taken lightly. HMRC has recently lost several IR35 cases before the Tax Tribunal, and the changes are unlikely to affect anywhere near as many people as the government has predicted. When similar changes were introduced into the public sector, many public sector bodies took HMRC’s word for it that the legislation applies, but private sector businesses would be advised not to do the same.’

Chris Sanger, EY’s head of tax policy, said it was important that the government ‘address the problems that are present in the current scheme’ before April 2020 or there would be ‘a strong risk that the implementation will be problematic and potentially undermine the availability of the UK’s flexible workforce’.

HMRC will publish a consultation paper outlining the details of the reforms in the next few months.

Issue: 7815 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll