Fuel shortage

Thats not the case Adi, you can be a hidden employee and still be self employed through a limited company, but you have to pay full NI as both an employee and employer as well as PAYE income tax. You just can't pay corporate tax and take your money as dividends

This isn’t accurate. It's something I advise on. You are talking about the general IR35 regime which applies other than where the end client is a public authority or, (as from April 2021), a medium or large private entity with a UK connection. In the situation that is the subject of this thread i.e. where a medium/large UK company engages a worker via an intermediary then the ‘off-payroll IR35 regime’ applies rather than the general IR35 regime and the fee payer is obliged to deduct tax at source.

Broadly, the effect of the off-payroll IR35 regime is, in relevant situations, to shift the responsibility for assessing whether IR35 applies from the PSC to the end client and, in the event IR35 does apply, to shift the obligation to make deductions in respect of income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) onto the party that is closest in the relevant contractual chain to the PSC (whether that party is the end client which contracts directly with the PSC or another intervening intermediary in more complicated contractual arrangements) i.e. the fee payer.

Those relevant situations are, broadly, arrangements whereby a worker provides services to an end client through an intermediary where, but for the existence of that intermediary, the relationship between worker and end client would be one of employee and employer.

If the off-payroll IR35 regime applies, the end client is responsible for providing the worker with a Status Determination Status. If theSDS determines that the engagement falls within the scope of the off-payroll IR35 regime and the intermediary entity conditions are satisfied, it is necessary to establish the contractual chain under which the services of the individual are supplied as this dictates the responsibilities of each party, including undertaking the assessment as to whether the off-payroll IR35 regime applies, for issuing and cascading the SDS and, if the off-payroll IR35 regime does apply (crucially in terms of the point you're making), for making and accounting for the required deductions in respect of income tax and NICs.

In a nutshell, the ‘highest’ person in the contractual chain is the end client and the ‘lowest’ is the individual's PSC (or other relevant intermediary). A chain will be established where payments (or money's worth or any other benefit) which can reasonably be taken to be for the individual's services to the end client (a 'chain payment') are made between each respective entity in the contractual chain. Once the contractual chain has been identified it is then necessary to identify the 'fee-payer', which is defined as the entity in the contractual chain immediately above the 'lowest', ie the entity in the contractual chain above the individual's PSC. As a result (and subject to some exceptions), the fee-payer will be required to add the individual to their payroll and to operate PAYE on the deemed direct payment, deducting and accounting for income tax. Equivalent obligations to deduct and account for NICs also apply, including a liability for the fee-payer to account for employer's NICs.
 
This isn’t accurate. It's something I advise on. You are talking about the general IR35 regime which applies other than where the end client is a public authority or, (as from April 2021), a medium or large private entity with a UK connection. In the situation that is the subject of this thread i.e. where a medium/large UK company engages a worker via an intermediary then the ‘off-payroll IR35 regime’ applies rather than the general IR35 regime and the fee payer is obliged to deduct tax at source.

Broadly, the effect of the off-payroll IR35 regime is, in relevant situations, to shift the responsibility for assessing whether IR35 applies from the PSC to the end client and, in the event IR35 does apply, to shift the obligation to make deductions in respect of income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) onto the party that is closest in the relevant contractual chain to the PSC (whether that party is the end client which contracts directly with the PSC or another intervening intermediary in more complicated contractual arrangements) i.e. the fee payer.

Those relevant situations are, broadly, arrangements whereby a worker provides services to an end client through an intermediary where, but for the existence of that intermediary, the relationship between worker and end client would be one of employee and employer.

If the off-payroll IR35 regime applies, the end client is responsible for providing the worker with a Status Determination Status. If theSDS determines that the engagement falls within the scope of the off-payroll IR35 regime and the intermediary entity conditions are satisfied, it is necessary to establish the contractual chain under which the services of the individual are supplied as this dictates the responsibilities of each party, including undertaking the assessment as to whether the off-payroll IR35 regime applies, for issuing and cascading the SDS and, if the off-payroll IR35 regime does apply (crucially in terms of the point you're making), for making and accounting for the required deductions in respect of income tax and NICs.

In a nutshell, the ‘highest’ person in the contractual chain is the end client and the ‘lowest’ is the individual's PSC (or other relevant intermediary). A chain will be established where payments (or money's worth or any other benefit) which can reasonably be taken to be for the individual's services to the end client (a 'chain payment') are made between each respective entity in the contractual chain. Once the contractual chain has been identified it is then necessary to identify the 'fee-payer', which is defined as the entity in the contractual chain immediately above the 'lowest', ie the entity in the contractual chain above the individual's PSC. As a result (and subject to some exceptions), the fee-payer will be required to add the individual to their payroll and to operate PAYE on the deemed direct payment, deducting and accounting for income tax. Equivalent obligations to deduct and account for NICs also apply, including a liability for the fee-payer to account for employer's NICs.
Very detailed Adi. Not sure if it's changed in the 10 years or so since I contacted but without ever going through an intermediary I worked several IT contracts done were deemed inside IR35 and some outside. This was all done through my own limited company and I was advised by my accountant for each contract.

As I say the legislation has probably changed but I can only speak about how tax worked when I was self employed and I always prayed paye at some level and always payed ni twice on the salary part of my payment.
 
Very detailed Adi. Not sure if it's changed in the 10 years or so since I contacted but without ever going through an intermediary I worked several IT contracts done were deemed inside IR35 and some outside. This was all done through my own limited company and I was advised by my accountant for each contract.

As I say the legislation has probably changed but I can only speak about how tax worked when I was self employed and I always prayed paye at some level and always payed ni twice on the salary part of my payment.

Yes it has changed. You were working under the ‘general regime’ and could make deemed tax payments and work in the way you have described. The changes to IR35 now mean that the HGV drivers we are talking about can’t do that and the fee payers have to deduct tax at source.
 
Yes it has changed. You were working under the ‘general regime’ and could make deemed tax payments and work in the way you have described. The changes to IR35 now mean that the HGV drivers we are talking about can’t do that and the fee payers have to deduct tax at source.
Cheers Adi.
 
The question was "why"?
Not about morality.
I suggest its in their interests. (y)
Actually, the original question was why did you mention that they were white men. To which your answer was 'why not', which was a little bit odd.
But I'm not interested now so you can just forget about it (which you had anyway).
 
Why should I. People are defending brexit with phrases like "it's not as bad as building the Burma railway"

When you reach that level of desperation you can expect to be treat with the contempt such a comment deserves
It was in reference to the so called fuel shortages,now run along your obsession with fitting in on here over brexit is wearing Tory boy.
 
Actually, the original question was why did you mention that they were white men. To which your answer was 'why not', which was a little bit odd.
But I'm not interested now so you can just forget about it (which you had anyway).
My question was "why".

I have to do my pack - up.
Dont know about you - I have to work for a living,
Later. (y)
 
BP, a company who have directors and a former CEO who have donated to both the Conservative Party and Johnson leadership campaign make an announcement of closed petrol stations and problems in the supply chain, this creates a trickle of press interest, soon after the Ministry of Transport make a statement about there being no fuel shortages and no need to panic buy which creates a massive upswell of media interest, especially in the traditional Conservative wings of the press, and leads to a situation where people alter their usual buying patterns and the prophecy becomes self fulfilled.

In the meantime, leading up to a a period of heavy temporary worker requirements, the Government, under the guise of easing a crisis that originated from their donors and was heightened by their Transport Ministry, announce measures to remove visa requirements for non-specific workers, we don’t know who emergency waiver applies to but we do know that it does include tanker drivers.

A concerted campaign to blame the press for reporting the situation, whilst ignoring the role of other organisations in fuelling (pardon the pun) the crisis, it also removes the focus from a massive policy U-Turn that was fundamental to their election goes unnoticed and by the previous attacks on the press neutralises any reportage as ‘fear mongering’ ‘irresponsible’ or ‘fanning the flames’.

It’s almost divisive governance by numbers, create a crisis, be seen to act to resolve crisis, then use situation to bring something else into the equation that on its own would be unpopular and a huge about turn.

Brexit, IR35, Covid etc are all bit part players in the back story of the crisis but the primary players are the government and their climb down on immigrant workers.
 
Last edited:
BP, a company who have directors and a former CEO who have donated to both the Conservative Party and Johnson leadership campaign make an announcement of closed petrol stations and problems in the supply chain, this creates a trickle of press interest, soon after the Ministry of Transport make a statement about there being no fuel shortages and no need to panic but which creates a massive upswell of media
interest and leads to a situation where people alter their usual buying patterns and the prophecy becomes self fulfilled.

In the meantime, leading up to a a period of heavy temporary worker requirements, the Government, under the guise of easing a crisis, that originated from their donors and was heightened by their Transport Ministry announce measures to remove visa requirements, whilst not being specific of which workers this emergency waiver will impact, we do know that it does include tanker drivers.

A concerted campaign to blame the press for reporting the situation, whilst ignoring the role of other organisations in fuelling (pardon the pun) the crisis, it also removes the focus from a massive policy U-Turn that was fundamental to their election goes unnoticed and by the previous attacks on the press neutralises any reportage as ‘fear mongering’ ‘irresponsible’ or ‘fanning the flames’.

It’s almost divisive governance by numbers, create a crisis, be seen to act to resolve crisis, then use situation to bring something else into the equation that on its own would be unpopular and a huge about turn.

Brexit, IR35, Covid etc are all bit part players in the back story of the crisis but the primary players are the government and their climb down on immigrant workers.
In a nutshell!! You only omitted “blame the press who then acquiesce“ because most of them are the government’s mouth piece anyway!
 
Listening to BBC Radio 5 @ 4.50pm today, it was said there are now more fuel tank drivers in the UK than before 2020.

Anyone - Is this true?
 
Listening to BBC Radio 5 @ 4.50pm today, it was said there are now more fuel tank drivers in the UK than before 2020.

Anyone - Is this true?
Probably😂

Just doesn't fit the many arguments. This isn't just a brexit and covid problem.

The average age of a class 1 driver is apparently 56. Simply kids don't leave school and say 'I want to be a lorry driver'. Despite the fact you can make some decent money with little or no qualifications.

I keep reading on line folk moaning that drivers should be prioritisesd into tankers for now. Again clowns not knowing what they are talking about as you need an ADR qualification to drive tankers (again more expense).
 
BP, a company who have directors and a former CEO who have donated to both the Conservative Party and Johnson leadership campaign make an announcement of closed petrol stations and problems in the supply chain, this creates a trickle of press interest, soon after the Ministry of Transport make a statement about there being no fuel shortages and no need to panic but which creates a massive upswell of media
interest and leads to a situation where people alter their usual buying patterns and the prophecy becomes self fulfilled.

In the meantime, leading up to a a period of heavy temporary worker requirements, the Government, under the guise of easing a crisis, that originated from their donors and was heightened by their Transport Ministry announce measures to remove visa requirements, whilst not being specific of which workers this emergency waiver will impact, we do know that it does include tanker drivers.

A concerted campaign to blame the press for reporting the situation, whilst ignoring the role of other organisations in fuelling (pardon the pun) the crisis, it also removes the focus from a massive policy U-Turn that was fundamental to their election goes unnoticed and by the previous attacks on the press neutralises any reportage as ‘fear mongering’ ‘irresponsible’ or ‘fanning the flames’.

It’s almost divisive governance by numbers, create a crisis, be seen to act to resolve crisis, then use situation to bring something else into the equation that on its own would be unpopular and a huge about turn.

Brexit, IR35, Covid etc are all bit part players in the back story of the crisis but the primary players are the government and their climb down on immigrant workers.
Sure but they aren't reacting to the "made up crisis" in a smooth & professional way.

About 12 hours ago the Environment Minister said there are no plans to use the army, this morning Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said they are on standby, what is the betting that before the week is out they are being mobilised?

Although tbh it wouldn't surprise me that the government manufactured a pretend crisis that they could react to to u-turn on another policy with public support and still manage to mess it up.

1632814175901.png

1632814256089.png
 
Back
Top