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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll