ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

5 years, 7 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Thank you Marlom, I'll get to grips with the changes for a project in the next couple of months :)

5 years, 7 months ago - John Lubran

We've had a few discussions about this over the last couple of years. I've repeatedly pointed out that whilst HMRC does have limited police powers, they cannot and do not make rules let alone laws. Many and possibly all of their rules have no lawful provenance. In particular their quasi regulations about who is or not self employed have been entirely an expedience of their own bureaucracy. It's a matter for Parliament and the courts alone.

In recent times their assertions have been successfully challenged, along the same lines as I've frequently repeated here. These so called new 'policies' have nothing to do with HMRC presumptions and everything to do with actual law.

It ought follow that many improper decisions made within the last six years (longer if it can asserted that costs and losses were incurred consequential to negligence, coercion and or fraud, which includes demanding money with menaces) are eligible for compensation.

One could hardly make it up.

5 years, 7 months ago - Marlom Tander

John - I'm happy to argue with HMRC as required, have done, have won, but in this case, even if you think they are wrong, the finding is IN FAVOUR of our industry.

I've run Payroll with a mix of EEs, SE and Service Companies in other industries and what HMRC allows us to do in this industry re "who is SE" is way more relaxed than elsewhere. If most of these roles were almost anywhere else's eqvs, they'd all have to be EEs.

5 years, 7 months ago - John Lubran

I'm not disagreeing with you Marlom. Of course it's good to have clarity in ones dealings with HMRC.

However these new rules defining who is self employed or otherwise ought not be seen as being anything to do with HMRC's authority. They've been forced to update their own policies by ordinary people winning Court cases. The poker faced new explanations are just a face saving device. Losing court cases is not just a technicality, it's a slap on the wrist for wrong doing. They struggle to admit their shame.

My point is, and has long been, that people have been unduly cap doffing to the overbearing presumption of HMRC's so called rules, which have extended to absurd inventions such as those letters of exemption, that have no basis in any law. Similar unlawful presumptions of petty officialdom can be found in most statutory departments of the state, from the civil service, local government, police and even too often in the lower courts and tribunals.

If it wasn't for people like yourself challenging and winning cases we'd still be being bullied by all manner of bureaucratic presumption.

Good examples of victories over presumption have been the right to record absolutely anything from a public place and to not be obstructed by false assertions of causing an obstruction that flowed from spurious regulations regarding tripods.

It's about deprograming people from the tendency to automatically respect corrupt authority.