| Our views on
IR35
Rationale
IR35 was a hastily conceived proposal aimed at
raising revenues by attacking what the Government perceived is a soft
target: a group of disconnected individuals (contractors). However, IR35
has to proved counter productive for all concerned:
contractors, agencies, accountants, clients engaging contractors and the
Government.
IR35, although getting muddled, appears to be squarely aimed at
contractors trading through own limited companies. This is because the
drawing of dividends attracts no liability to National Insurance (something
the Govt. wishes to prevent).
If you are uncertain about your status and wish IR35, Section 660 or
general Employment Status Advice, we are able to offer advice on these
matters with the the back up of
Bauer & Cottrell So
if you wish to have a contract reviewed ... you know where to come.
Assumptions
- IR35 states "....Government’s commitment to achieving a tax
system under which everyone pays their (sic) fair share" and
"....consultant paying substantially reduced tax and national
insurance".
Do we have a Government finally admitting that NI is merely another
tax? Anyway, our contention is that for a given salary/gross contract
income, a contractor working through his/her own limited company pays
virtually the same tax as a traditional employee.
| Salary/gross
contract income |
Traditional employee |
Contractor, Ltd Co. |
|
net income |
NI |
total tax |
total tax |
net income |
|
15000 |
11410 |
1500,1234 |
2356 |
2520 |
12480 |
|
20000 |
14670 |
2000,1734 |
3506 |
3570 |
16430 |
|
25000 |
18110 |
2500, 2234 |
4656 |
4620 |
20380 |
|
30000 |
21938 |
3000, 2256 |
5806 |
5670 |
24330 |
|
40000 |
28158 |
4000, 2256 |
9586 |
9179 |
30820 |
|
50000 |
34158 |
5000, 2256 |
13586 |
13254 |
36745 |
|
100000 |
64158 |
10000, 2256 |
33586 |
33629 |
66370 |
- NI shows employer and employee respectively
- assumes contractor draws £3000 salary, balance as dividends thereby
avoiding any NI
- 1998/99 rates used because assumed these were the figures used in
the original Govt. assessment of £475m lost revenue
Any prospective contractor must be looking to receive a gross
contracting income at least 40% greater than any salary he/she earned as
a traditional employee. Why? Factor in the following costs: pension 10%,
sick pay 2.5%, holiday pay (Working Time Regs.), employer NI
11.8%,
employee NI 10%, private medical insurance, company car, travel,
training, telephone, light, heat, accommodation, equipment/tools etc. Of
course, using the Ltd Co. route, the NI is optional but the benefits
that NI provides then have to be paid for (else forgone) privately at
the same cost: that is unless the Government is going to argue that NI
does not provide value for money.
OK. There can be no argument that on a gross basis a contractor
does (must) get paid more than a traditional employee for the same role.
Examine the case if this income is 40% more (as per our minimum
recommended starting point):
|
Traditional employee |
Contractor, Ltd Co. |
|
Salary |
total tax and NI |
total tax |
total tax |
Contract income |
|
15000 |
5090 |
2356 |
3780 |
21000 |
|
20000 |
7240 |
3506 |
5250 |
28000 |
|
25000 |
9390 |
4656 |
7142 |
35000 |
|
30000 |
11062 |
5806 |
11190 |
42000 |
|
40000 |
15842 |
9586 |
15699 |
56000 |
|
50000 |
20842 |
13586 |
21404 |
70000 |
|
100000 |
45842 |
33586 |
49929 |
140000 |
- Contract income = salary + 40%
- NI includes employer and employee
- Other assumptions as before
The inescapable conclusions are:
- For equivalent gross incomes, contractors working via a one man
limited company pay virtually the same tax (often more)as the
equivalent traditional employee (Table 1)
- In reality contractors get paid more gross for the equivalent
traditional employed role. Thus, even using a +40% minimum criteria,
all contractors pay more tax contrary to IR35’s assertion of
"substantially reduced tax" (Table 2)
- Following on from this, the higher tax even exceeds the sum of the
traditional employee’s tax and NI.
- Even if we include employer’s NI, the contractor’s tax paid
exceeds the total at higher contracting incomes (crossover between
£40000 and £50000). This point should be irrelevant since IR35
(Details 1) states the objective as "pay the same tax and NI as
someone employed directly" and not "as someone employed
directly and the employer too".
It seems more likely that IR35 will reduce Government revenues
contrary to the purpose for its existence. However, let’s look at some
other factors.
- Not all contractors work through a "one man limited
company". Those working as PAYE for an agency have no scope to
reduce NI let alone tax. Therefore, given the higher rates of
income, the Government revenues generated must be higher.
- Umbrella companies: many contractors working under one limited
company. In few cases are contractors shareholders within these
arrangements. Therefore, once again, there is no scope to reduce NI
or tax because all income is PAYE. Conclusion: higher gross income =
more tax and NI.
- IR35 (Details 3) states "no intention to redefine the
existing boundary between employment and self-employment". This
is a somewhat bemusing assertion:
- there are probably no contractors within IT working on a
self-employed basis although there are some within engineering.
Therefore, what is the relevance of that particular statement? The
Revenue appears as confused as some accounting firms over what
self-employment is: it certainly isn't working through a limited
company.
- anyone working via a limited company is almost certainly an
employee of that company. Those working via agencies or umbrellas
are also employees. Therefore, if you are an employee, how can you
be in "disguised employment".
The scope for tax and NI avoidance via self-employment cannot be the
issue because contractors are rarely self-employed.
Practicalities
How can the aims of IR35 be effected in any practical manner?
- In the past it has been difficult enough to distinguish between
the employed and self-employed: witness 714/SC60s in construction.
Given that the vast majority of contractors are already employees,
even if it is with their own companies. So the Revenue has
effectively created a new category of employment.
- Is there a legal basis for IR35, particularly within the framework
of the EC?
Unsurprisingly, the onus of proof and administration (collection and
payment) has changed from the client to.... yes the Contractor. Get it
wrong in your favour and you will be heavily penalised. Get it wrong in
the Revenue's favour and.... they'll keep quiet?
Effects
The effects of IR35 should be patently obvious to all.
- The UK is amongst the world’s leaders in IT and engineering
expertise but IR35 will result in a mass migration overseas. Labour
precipitated a brain drain in the 70s from which we have just
recovered. Is "new" Labour to do the same? There are
Contractors now fleeing to the EC or refusing to Contract
at all.. By the very nature of their work, contractors are used to
upheaval and occupational mobility and so stepping across the
channel is no big deal.
- What about the multiplier? This is the economic mechanism whereby
money spent feeds back though the economy to have much greater
effect than the initial spend. Contractors’ higher incomes feed
back through the economy many times over and also support a whole
(if not wholesome!) industry of agencies and accountants.
- We don’t foresee IR35 being a major vote winner:
- amongst the real abuses of tax and NI are
"self-employed" direct sales forces: Allied Dunbar,
Prudential, Everest, Möben etc. By taking all income as commission,
they avoid employment status using the loophole of non-surety of
income. If tax avoidance is really an issue then this has to be a
far more valid starting point: or do these companies have more
lobbying power than unconnected individual contractors?
- why are accountancy and solicitors' partnerships not affected?
- the accusation of "Tony’s cronies" is going to be
levelled. The biggest beneficiaries of IR35 will be Accountants and
the big Consulting companies of this world. Further, we doubt the
users of contractors will thank Mr Brown for forcing them to pay the
kinds of rates charged by these organisations
Conclusion
Of course, the honest thing to do would be to eliminate NI and add it to
the tax rates. This would simplify the tax system, reduce bureaucracy
and save £millions from people pushing bits of paper around in
Newcastle. The downside is that Labour would then be unable to claim we
have the lowest tax rates in Europe.
If you are going Contracting you must familiarise yourself with the
rules and their workings.
There are grey areas and so you must optimise
your chances of escaping.
To that end you can do little better than to
visit and join the Professional
Contractors Group
|