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

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll