HMRC Announcements

Planned IR35 changes confirmed in 2018 Budget

Posted by David on October 30, 2018
CIS, HMRC, News articles, Status / Comments Off on Planned IR35 changes confirmed in 2018 Budget

Earlier in 2018 the government consulted on whether to alter the so called ‘IR35 rules, in effect whether to transfer the IR35 obligations from the hired Personal Service Company (PSC) to the hirer of the service.

These extended rules were first introduced in April 2017, though at that time the changes applied only to hirers in the Public Sector. However the latest Budget 2018 documentation confirms that the new rules will be extended to the Private Sector, from April 2020.

Make no mistake this is a very significant switch in responsibility. Whilst the latest information suggests that the precise nature of the changes will themselves be subject to consultation (including perhaps exclusion of ‘small businesses’ from applying the new rules), at this stage it is fair to assume the new Private Sector obligations will mirror the Public Sector equivalent. This will mean:

  • The body hiring the PSC and worker has to make a decision whether the particular contract is ‘caught’ within IR35. In short, the hirer must decide would the worker be their employee if the PSC had not been used. Employment status is of course a very complex employment case law test, which requires a full understanding of how the contract will operate practically (simply agreeing robust written terms will not be enough in itself).
  • If the contract is caught, the body paying the PSC must deduct and account for PAYE and NIC before it pays the PSC. If the hirer pays though an intermediary agency or employment business etc., the hirer must inform the intermediary agency of the PAYE/NIC obligation.
  • Apart from the extra cost to the hirer (e.g. the employer’s NIC cost) the practicalities of deducting PAYE/NIC at the same time as paying a limited company, which may have other obligations e.g. VAT payment, may mean that specialist software is needed.

What can be done?

We admit there is unlikely to be a ‘one size fits all’ solution that we can dust off the shelf. However the announced timescale and promised HMRC guidance should ensure that, with very careful planning and a flexible approach, any increases in outgoings can be managed.

Please contact ET4B if you would like to discuss this further.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Government paranoia over salary sacrifice persists

Posted by David on February 28, 2017
Expenses and benefits, Flexible Benefits, HMRC, News articles / Comments Off on Government paranoia over salary sacrifice persists

A significant change effective from 6 April 2017 is the new legislation applicable to salary sacrifice and flexible benefits (or ‘Optional Remuneration Arrangements’ to use the latest terminology). Non-cash benefits provided to employees on an ‘Optional’ basis (i.e. where the employee has a choice whether or not to receive the benefit) will then be taxed on the higher of the amount of salary the employee gives up or the value of the benefit they actually receive. However, given that the most common salary sacrifices (pensions, employer provided childcare, and Cycle to Work schemes) will be excluded from the new rules, this seems unlikely to swell the Exchequer’s coffers as much as expected.

In our own view, the new legislation is extremely ill-conceived (both in concept and in practical application). Nonetheless, and despite reasonable objections and suggested alternatives being put forward by many professional bodies, it is due to become law very soon. In short, it is a highly complex and significant change (i.e. taxing what the employee might have received rather than what they actually receive), for what might be very expensive to administer and police, and of course a resultant loss of flexibility for the employer/employee.

We think the new arrangements will most commonly affect in-house benefits, accommodation benefits, and ‘company car or cash’ schemes (if provided optionally). For example, if the employee elects for an efficient and clean company car (as opposed to taking a cash allowance so they can buy their own gas guzzler), they will be caught within the new rules unless the car’s CO2 rating is 75g/km or less!

Following the 2016 Autumn Statement it was announced that some of the changes are to be phased in; there will be no alteration to the treatment of existing employee agreements on company cars, living accommodation, or school fees benefits, until April 2021, and for other existing benefits, until April 2018.

Whilst there may be a temptation to think that ‘nothing needs to be done’ until these later dates are reached, this is certainly not the case. This transitional ‘grandfathering’ will only apply if arrangements have been definitively entered into with each employee, by 5 April 2017. Also HMRC has said that subsequent contractual changes, renewal (including auto renewal) or modification (i.e. made after 5 April) will have the effect of cancelling any such transitional exceptions. Given there are many ways in which a contract can be updated or amended (some involving specific employee elections or employer confirmations, others being undertaken on a one-off basis and some periodically), it will be vital that any new contracts or contractual changes, both before and after 5 April, are considered and implemented effectively.

Whilst some changes may be needed, we don’t see this as the end of ‘flexible benefits’ as a concept. We believe that a quite a lot of existing flexible remuneration policies may be retained, well within both the letter and the spirit of the new law. However, more than ever before, careful drafting of employer policies and employee agreements will be essential.

Tags: , , , , , ,

IR35 obligations where personal services are provided to Public Authority clients

Posted by David on February 28, 2017
HMRC, News articles, Payroll, Status / Comments Off on IR35 obligations where personal services are provided to Public Authority clients

There will be new ‘IR35’ rules to consider from 6 April 2017, where individuals provide their personal services to a Public Authority client via their own Personal Service Company (PSC). The planned changes apply for all payments made on or after 6 April 2017, whether or not the service etc was provided before that date.

The new obligations may be summarised as follows:

–           Firstly it is essential to decide whether the contract falls within the new rules, i.e. is the contractor supplying their services to a Public Authority client, as opposed to someone else (not always easy to tell, especially if there is a chain of contracts), and are they providing a personal service in doing so? NB: the stated definition of a Public Authority body is one which is required to respond to ‘Freedom of Information’ requests, but many smaller or subsidiary bodies are not actually sure if this applies to them.

–           If so, then the Public Authority client must make a decision whether or not ‘IR35’ applies i.e. would the worker be their own employee if none of the other ‘intermediary’ structures existed in the engagement chain?

–           If IR35 applies, the Public Authority must either withhold PAYE/NIC in full (accounting for this under RTI) or inform anyone else paying the PSC, in order that the payer may itself observe that obligation (the latter may apply if payments are routed through an employment business or agency to the PSC).

In making decisions on IR35 matters, HMRC expects the Public Authority to be able to rely on its new online digital status tool (which seems highly optimistic given that the tool was only made public by HMRC on 2 March, and there have been many signs in the ‘beta testing’ phase that the tool lacks robustness ). Whilst this digital HMRC tool may ultimately prove to be a useful guide, the distinction between employed and self-employed status remains a non-statutory test, so an effective working knowledge of employment case law is likely to be required.

This in itself assumes that the Public Authority will know enough about how the contract operates in order to make these decisions. Whilst HMRC insists that the IR35 rules are not being tightened fundamentally, all those in the contractual chain will need to have an operational understanding on these new procedures, as well as effective exchanges of information, to avoid PAYE/NIC simply having to be operated ‘by default’. This would inevitably cause upward pressures on the costs of the contract, if only for the fact that employer’s NIC would be due from the payer.

The most recent HMRC guidance also says that if the worker does not provide their services via a PSC, then the new rules don’t apply. Perhaps misleadingly, this guidance omits to say that more onerous obligations apply if the payer is a non-compliant Managed Service Company (MSC). In practice it may be very difficult to distinguish between a PSC, a compliant ‘umbrella’ payroll, and a non-compliant MSC, so specialist advice may be needed in cases of doubt.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Inflexible benefits from April 2017?

Posted by David on October 04, 2016
Expenses and benefits, Flexible Benefits, HMRC, News articles, Payroll / Comments Off on Inflexible benefits from April 2017?

Now that the summer holiday period is over, it is (unfortunately) time to return our focus to work matters, and this inevitably includes recognition of any changes which HMRC has in the pipeline for us. In fact we have identified at least one such recent proposal which could prove to be a real banana skin, for both HMRC and employers.

In August 2016 HMRC announced a consultation on salary sacrifice arrangements (including flexible benefits). In brief, this document indicates that HM government has decided there are only certain types of flexible benefits which it ‘approves of’ (primarily contributions to registered pension schemes, employer provided childcare, and ‘cycle to work’ schemes). The consultation proposes that (from 6 April 2017) all tax advantages for any other benefits provided via salary sacrifice (which include for example company cars and health screening), would in effect be reversed.

It is our view that these proposals are very significantly misguided, both in principle, and as regards the proposed ‘solution’ which we do not believe will work effectively in practice. The proposed timescale is also much too short given the significance of the changes proposed.

Is there a rationale for change?

The consultation expresses a reasonable concern as to the extent to which tax/NIC duties are ‘lost’ to the Exchequer, as a result of salary sacrifice or flex schemes, but unfortunately that is where the common sense appears to begin and end. HMRC’s attempts to ‘quantify’ the extent of the problem seem to consist of a survey (designed and conducted by HMRC for its own purposes), and the fact that HMRC’s salary sacrifice clearance team is a bit busier than it used to be. The latter is more likely explained by the greater centralisation of HMRC resources, as well the publicity given to other statutory alterations which may be relevant (e.g. changes to dispensation rules). No attempt seems to have been made to quantify objectively the number of schemes which have been withdrawn or phased out in recent years, which is surely part of any overall balanced picture.

In our experience, by far and away the main employer saving is achieved when salary sacrifice is implemented to pay pension contributions, i.e. something which HMRC does approve of and would be unaffected by the proposals. Most other arrangements tend to generate minimal savings for the employer. Overall we feel the consultation downplays the real reason why most such schemes are introduced, i.e. as a legitimate employee recruitment and retention tool, and focuses simply on the perceived cost to the Exchequer.

The rest of HMRC’s reasoning contains a number of very questionable assertions around the loss of state benefits for claimants and possible knock-on effects for the tax/universal credits systems. It is true for example that some employees very close to National Minimum Wage cannot participate, but this is so for all salary sacrifice arrangements (including the ones HMRC ‘generously’ approves of).

What is the solution proposed by HMRC?

The solution proposed is, unfortunately, even more half-baked. The idea is that, to identify arrangements caught under these rules, there would be a simple distinction between a benefit an employee can choose, and one which the employee has no choice in (the latter being unaffected). Where the benefit (of a type which is not ‘approved’ by HMRC) has been chosen by the employee via salary sacrifice, the taxable sum would be the higher of the normal benefit calculation and the sacrificed salary.

In principle this seems both a complex and an incorrect approach. The idea of the employee being taxed on what they could potentially have received, rather than on what salary and benefits they do actually enjoy seems wrong fundamentally. It will create the exact opposite of the level playing field HMRC says it wants. For example, in the (extremely common) situation where an employee takes a simple option for a company car rather than an alternative cash allowance, presumably the proposal would now make the cash allowance the taxable sum, if higher than the company car benefit.

Furthermore we don’t believe the proposal will work in practice. Changes to contracts may be achieved by a myriad of methods, including situations where the employee appears to have no choice in the matter (but may have?), and cases where the employee is ‘opted in’ without their explicit agreement. In trying to over-simplify something which can be extremely complex in nature, we believe a system would be created which most employers (and probably HMRC) would not really understand and hence fail to comply with in practice. From our own experience we have seen numerous instances where even the Big-4 accountancy practices have failed to grasp what is involved in actually implementing an effective contractual change.

We can also foresee a number of practical problems. Not all employer’s systems (whether payroll, or other internal or external systems are used) recognise or display sacrificed salary, and indeed some agreements are almost ‘silent’ and date back several years (perhaps even to the date the employment commenced). In practice, how will any additional reporting requirement be identified and met in such cases?

Ultimately we suspect that employers who can obtain the best advice will be able to work around these problems, and in many cases it may be possible to protect the existing tax/NIC treatment with careful planning. Other employers will not be so lucky, and we would not envisage any employer would feel comfortable at the time of their next Employer Compliance Review by HMRC.

What is the alternative?

If HM government does genuinely perceive a real issue with salary sacrifice, we would suggest the only realistic alternative is to consider the benefits in kind legislation itself. For example in the case where a specific statutory exemption applies, it would be possible to alter that exemption if implemented in conjunction with salary sacrifice. You may recall the government has already dealt with matters on this basis in previous years, when abolishing the ‘home computer scheme’, also in revising the ‘mobile telephone’ and ‘workplace canteen’ exemptions.

Where the benefit is being taxed already we would suggest HMRC should reconsider, and pause for a sense check here. Why should for example a company car be taxed any differently where salary sacrifice is involved? The CO2 basis of company car taxation seems to have been very successful over the years, in helping to drive down vehicle emissions, and we completely fail to see why anyone should want to alter this now.

Timing problems

We believe there could be very significant employer cost and compliance implications if the changes as proposed were indeed adopted on 6 April 2017. Apart from necessitating an update to any flexible benefits policy document, the systems implications could be great (this would potentially include payroll, and any other system which is used to record and monitor flex or salary sacrifices). Does HMRC think such changes can happen overnight, without any material cost implications? Where the benefit is agreed between employers and employees on a longer term basis (e.g. a company car taken on a 4 year lease) this cannot be cancelled at short notice without significant additional costs for all parties. We therefore find it difficult to believe that HM government genuinely wishes to bring in any changes within such a short and arbitrary timeframe.

We would be interested to receive your own feedback in relation to these proposals.

If you wish to discuss this further, to understand how the changes may affect your own arrangements, or if you would like ET4B to contribute toward your own response to the consultation (which should be submitted by 19 October 2016), please contact us.

Tags: , , , ,

Update on voluntary payrolling of benefits from April 2016

Posted by David on February 15, 2016
Expenses and benefits, HMRC, National Insurance, News articles, Payroll / Comments Off on Update on voluntary payrolling of benefits from April 2016

HMRC has recently set out the framework by which employers will be able to collect tax voluntarily on specified benefits through payroll thus avoiding (or very substantially reducing) the annual P11D return cycle.

From the outset

Decide which benefits you wish to payroll: Employers may elect for some but not necessarily all benefits to be payrolled, e.g. to include medical benefits but not company cars. Many employers see this a way of ‘easing themselves in’ to the new process, especially if HMRC does experience any teething problems.

Also note that the election will cover the whole of a particular section of the P11D; so that if for instance you use Section M of the P11D to record two or more different types of ‘Other’ benefits, you would need to be sure that all such benefits (previously included within that P11D section) can now be payrolled.

Benefits which specifically cannot be payrolled are: vouchers and credit cards/tokens, employer provided living accommodation, and beneficial loans (currently sections C, D and H of the form P11D).

Are there any employees you wish to exclude? The presumption is that all employees receiving benefits within that ‘P11D section’ will now be payrolled, unless HMRC is told otherwise. Whilst it is possible to tell HMRC if you need to exclude particular people, it remains to be seen how effective HMRC is in recognising any such exclusions.

Make your election in good time: HMRC requires the employer to register before the start of the tax year – this can be done via the online ‘PAYE for Employers’ service. Employers who have informally payrolled benefits in the past are still required to register as this previous process is being phased out.

Another point to note is that you can’t change your mind part way through the tax year.

If you decide you want to ‘opt out’ for a future tax year (having previously opted in) you would need to inform HMRC before the start of that new year.

Removing benefits from tax codes: Once you have made the election, HMRC states that they will remove the benefits in kind, previously included within each employees’ tax coding, automatically. This may prove to be an interesting conundrum for HMRC, if say the tax coding currently includes two or more P11D items under the generic description of ‘benefits in kind’ (one of which is now payrolled and the other one isn’t) and we wait to see if HMRC’s systems are subtle enough to detect the difference.

Tell the employees: Although the latest HMRC guidance says that you ‘must’ provide employees certain information at the outset, we cannot see that requirement reflected within the new Regulations. Nonetheless any sensible employer would be well advised to let employees know, i.e. before the employees start to receive their updated tax codings (and before they notice the changes to their payslips). Whilst HMRC does suggest sending a letter to affected employees, the department does acknowledge there is no required or set format for such notifications, and the employer will generally choose the method which is most effective for them e.g. email, intranet, separate notices on pay statements etc.

During the year

Tax the benefit via PAYE: You must include the relevant benefit as an amount which is subject to PAYE tax, but not NIC, and spread this over each payment period of the year. Of course this is not an actual payment in cash so, in payroll terms, the easiest way of ensuring the correct calculations may be to also include the benefit as a net pay deduction.

Maximum PAYE deduction is 50% of pay: Employers must ensure the maximum PAYE deduction of 50% of pay is not exceeded. Note that the benefit is a deemed rather than an actual payment of income; so the 50% maximum must be applied to the pay before the deemed benefit is added in. Most employers will probably rely on their payroll software supplier to spot any potential issues here. In practice we can envisage some potential issues in cases where employees are on unpaid sick or maternity leave (i.e. where their benefits in kind continue).

Dealing with leavers: The employer should include the cash equivalent of the benefits within any P45 taxable pay to date figure.

HMRC does also confirm that the employer may adjust the final pay period(s) of leavers, to ensure that, as far as possible, the employee pays the correct amount of tax on the benefit up to the date of leaving. If such an adjustment is not possible before the employee has left (e.g. there is no further payment due), there are two choices; either the employer adds the ‘untaxed’ element of the benefit to  taxable pay and enters this on an amended FPS, but without adjusting the taxable pay to date, and sends this to HMRC advising the employee has left, or the value of benefit not collected via payroll must be returned on form P11D. Whichever of the two option is chosen, HMRC’s current guidance is that the department will itself seek to recover the unpaid tax direct from the employee.

Other ‘in year’ benefit changes: If for instance an employee changes their company car during the year, the employer would normally calculate the actual benefit for ‘car 1’ plus the estimated benefit for ‘car 2’ (both calculations reduced as appropriate for days unavailable). Any benefit value not already taxed would then be spread over the remaining pay periods of the year.

HMRC does acknowledge there will be occasions where the ‘correction’ is not processed before the end of the tax year, and in these circumstances will accept that any sum not taxed in ‘year 1’ can be taxed in ‘year 2’. NB: the Regulations appear to be drafted on the premise that the employer will always know about such changes instantaneously, however in reality that may not always happen (e.g. in a large organisation where information cannot always be shared immediately between departments). We would therefore hope that HMRC will apply some common sense and latitude here.

Correcting calculation mistakes made: Similarly HMRC accepts the occasional recalculation will be necessary e.g.  where the estimated number of paydays or actual benefits have been calculated wrongly. The same might apply if a company car fuel benefit applied which had not been recognised and payrolled (e.g. because an employee failed to make good the full private fuel as expected). Again some amount of year end cross-over is permitted so that any benefits not payrolled in ‘year 1’ can be payrolled in ‘year 2’

At the year end

Employee information: The new Regulations do confirm that the employer should include the cash equivalent of the benefits within any P60 year end figure. The timescale is the same as for forms P60 (i.e. 31 May following the year end), and it is assumed that most payroll software will be able to incorporate any necessary data on the form P60 itself.

Forms P11D will of course still be required for any benefits which were (for whatever reason) not payrolled.  Many sections of the current form P11D incorporate a section showing ‘amount made good or from which tax deducted’, however this is not so for company car or fuel benefits, hence we assume the P11D form will either be reworded or further HMRC guidance issued.

Submit form P11D(b) and pay Class 1A NIC: As only PAYE tax has been collected via payroll, the employer’s NIC obligation will be largely unchanged. As things stand, forms P11D(b) must still be submitted by 6 July following the end of the year, with the Class 1A NIC remaining due and payable by the following 19 July date.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Travel and subsistence deductions – for agency and other workers paid through intermediaries

Posted by David on December 15, 2015
Expenses and benefits, HMRC, News articles, Status / Comments Off on Travel and subsistence deductions – for agency and other workers paid through intermediaries

On 9 December 2015 HMRC published its detailed proposals and draft PAYE legislation (with equivalent NIC legislation to follow), which would place significant limits on expenses claims made by workers paid though employment agencies and similar structures. The proposals are expected to take effect from 6 April 2016.

How does the new legislation work?
In principle the change is disarmingly simple, and will now deem that each engagement of the worker, by the employment agency etc., is regarded as a separate employment.

Since 1998, legislation has deemed that if substantially the whole period of an employment is performed at a single place, then any travel (i.e. from home or another private location) in order to get to or from that place, is ‘ordinary commuting’ i.e. non-allowable.

However employment agencies have often argued that a worker, albeit ‘moved’ from one period/place of client engagement to another period/place, is employed on a single overarching contract of employment by the agency. If this argument succeeds, substantially all of the employment is not performed at a single place and hence any such travel to reach that place is to a ‘temporary’ rather than permanent workplace i.e. an allowable journey. The new legislation therefore expects to defeat this argument, by ensuring that each client engagement will be considered separately as if it was a stand-alone employment.

It is HMRC’s view that some workers of employment businesses are currently able to enjoy ‘unfair’ tax deductions. Also it is perceived that in many such cases the ’employer’ (or paying business) retains most of the benefit of this. Indeed it seems HMRC may possibly regard many ‘umbrella payrolls’ as adding little or no true commercial value, beyond generating income for themselves at the expense of the Exchequer (i.e. typically by charging a fee to the worker in return for arranging payment of ‘tax free’ expenses). The new legislation therefore seeks to remove any such perceived unfair tax/NIC advantages.

Which workers will be caught under the new legislation?
As a minimum:
– An individual (worker) must personally provide services. There will be some situations where personal services are demonstrably not provided; however it will be assumed most agency workers do provide their services personally, and the onus would be the parties if they wish to show that this test is not met.
– The personal services must be supplied to another person (the client).
– However any direct contract between the client and the worker would be excluded, hence the arrangement must involve an ’employment intermediary’ (such as an employment business or agency) being contractually placed between worker and client.
– The new rules do not however apply if the manner in which the worker provides the services is not subject to (or to the right of) supervision, direction or control, i.e. by any person. HMRC is known to interpret these tests both widely and stringently, and again it must be assumed the onus would be very much on the parties to prove that this test is not met.
– Work undertaken wholly within the client’s home is also excluded (this is a factual test).

One chink of light is that the draft guidance does accept that secondment of a worker from one place to another within the same engagement would potentially still be regarded as a move to a temporary workplace (assuming that secondment was for 2 years or less). Whilst there may be certain limited circumstances where this exception might apply, we imagine it would be difficult for an agency to ‘manipulate’ the length of a particular engagement in order to seek to take advantage of the ‘relaxation’. In practice most engagement periods are for a finite period and are determined by factors outside the employment agency’s control i.e. they are based on the client’s requirement primarily.

What about Personal Service Companies (PSCs)?
PSCs are themselves an ’employment intermediary’, and hence the worker supplied by the PSC is also potentially caught under the rules. However the draft legislation confirms the Government’s intention, as outlined in the Chancellor’s recent Autumn 2015 statement, that the PSC will have to be within ‘IR35’ to also be caught within these new travel restrictions.

In simple terms the ‘IR35’ legislation applies if the worker would be an employee of the client but for the interposition of the PSC. At present the large majority of PSCs regard their contracts as outside of IR35 and, if this is correct, then the PSC will not be caught by the new restrictions. However HMRC is currently considering consultation responses on the extent to which the IR35 rules should themselves be overhauled. Whilst HMRC sources have recently indicated that no hard and fast decisions (on IR35 changes) have yet been made, it is very much a question of ‘watching this space’.

As a PSC structure will only have to consider the new travel rules if they are also caught by IR35, another potential stumbling block is how precisely to define a PSC? In most cases a PSC will be self-evident i.e. a company owned and run by one man or woman; however for instance the structure and ownership of jointly run businesses may have to be looked at more carefully. In general the IR35 legislation (Section 48 et. seq. of Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003), is drawn widely to include as many businesses as possible within its definition of a PSC for this purpose. However paradoxically, in the context of the new legislation, IR35 may prove to be an excluding factor, i.e. if you are defined as a PSC but are outside of IR35, you are also outside of the new travel rules.

When might the new proposed ‘transfers of debt’ rules apply?
In common with other ‘anti-avoidance’ legislation, the new rules propose that unpaid PAYE debts can be transferred to other relevant parties. This follows a pattern initially established with the 2006 rules applicable to ‘Managed Service Companies’, as well as the 2014 legislation seeking to prevent the payment of agency workers on a ‘falsely self-employed’ basis, or being paid via ‘offshore’ companies where work has been undertaken in the UK. Briefly the new transfers of debt proposals are that:
-PAYE/NIC due on any taxable travel expenses would in the first instance be sought from the employment intermediary which paid those expenses.
– However if those duties remain unpaid, the debts may be transferred to any director of that employment intermediary, by means of serving a ‘personal liability notice’.
– As mentioned, if the IR35 rules apply to a PSC then so will the new travel rules. If in this event the PSC fails to account for the PAYE/NIC on taxable travel expenses, the debts may be transferred to the director(s) of the PSC. Presumably such a PSC may have also failed to recognise and properly apply the IR35 rules themselves; hence the business will face a challenge on more than one front.
– If there is evidence that a ‘client’ (i.e. the end user of the worker’s services) has fraudulently colluded with the intermediary i.e. by providing false evidence that the worker is not subject to supervision, direction or control, then debts may be transferred to the client (and in turn, the client’s directors if the debts remain unpaid). Whilst in practice a client will no doubt wish to determine the actual extent of supervision, direction or control of each worker, on an individual basis, under the new regime they would be unwise to share that process (formally or informally) with the Agency without extreme caution.

If you require any further information on these proposals, or indeed other ’employment intermediary’ obligations including the proposed IR35 overhaul, please contact ET4B.

Tags: , , , , , ,