A dose of realism, please

[geoff]

In message , IMM writes

Other than jobs on the side for tea and sandwiches, you don't get out in the real world much do you ?

[PoP]

I do think you might have a nasty shock ahead of you if you take this sort of attitude.

I can't speak for CORGI and gas fitting, but there were many thousands of "IT Consultants" who thought that government couldn't touch them with regard to taxation, because a limited company is a very legal entity which can, usually, set its own pay levels etc, and which are each protected in sacrosanct law. Government thought differently and imposed IR35 - and many thousands of IT companies have been forced to pay many thousands of pounds extra each year as a result, with courts tending to back the governments position rather than the limited company position.

In other words, if you are hiding behind a premise that you are okay, I would strongly advise you to shrug that attitude and consider what might happen if the authorities decided differently. You really could be in serious trouble - and because you aren't operating behind the veil of a limited company your own home could be on the line. Even with a limited company a high court judge can ignore its existence if he believed that it existed purely to defraud other liabilities.

It's up to you what you decide to do of course - but I certainly would not follow your example. And especially bragging about it on the Internet - we all like to think that the Inland Revenue moles might tend to be on the thicker end of a wedge but some of them are very smart cookies who know how to use Internet resources.

PoP

[IMM]

A part of a recent CORGI exam was a question relating to this. You CAN work on other people's supplies as long as you don't get paid and are competent.

[IMM]

"installed"

As I said.. "Nevertheless the boiler will last 20 years without much problems if the system is designed, installed and maintained correctly. Only minor components should fail in the interim. If you have a major item (apart from pump) you are unlucky."

[Dave Plowman]

Is this an accurate interpretation of the law?

[geoff]

In message , IMM writes

I know what you said

I stand by what I said

[Andy Hall]

The SI says nothing about payment. It refers to employers, employees and self employed and applies the need for CORGI membership to these. That's the only connection to the work being done as a commercial transaction. Normally a commercial transaction involves goods or services being exchanged for money, but it does not have to be money.

If somebody (not being a CORGI member) were to do gas fitting during his day job, he would clearly be outside the law.

If he does it for a 3rd party, and this is deemed to be a commercial transaction (which can be in kind either way), and this is established in a court, then the person is in trouble and outside the GSIUR.

It would not be that difficult for a lawyer to establish that work for a 3rd party has commercial value (friend or not). In IMM's case, since he is involved in the industry in some way, he claims, in a supervisory role, his case would be weakened because he should know the legislation. This is simply because a job like this looks, to all intents and purposes like a job done on the side in the same discipline as the day job.

IANAL, but I have been involved in a court case where the issue of commercial transaction for goods and services supplied was part of the argument. THe court held that a commercial transaction had taken place even though money was not the payment.

Much of English law operates on a case basis, and this is what was used here.

A completely "lay" person might get away with just being hit with being incompetent if something happened. However, a "professional" would be deemed to know better and liable to prosecution for doing commercial work without being a CORGI member.

This is consistent with Geoff's conversation with CORGI. Work done by yourself for yourself can never be considered to be a commercial transaction by definition. As soon as there is a 3rd party, the person doing the work is open to it being established that there was a commercial transaction even if money didn't change hands.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Serious trouble for fitting a boiler for a friend without any payment. Are you sane?

[IMM]

Bragging? About doing a friend a favour? What world are you in?

[IMM]

No supervision. No hands on.

How can a commercial transaction not have money or trade of any description? No money or trade - no commercial transaction. That is very simple. Any taxman attempting to pursue that in court would be laughed at.

This is like the IR saying a commercial transaction is undertaken by shovelling snow off the old ladies drive next door so she would not slip and break her back. 3rd party isn't it? Work done wasn't it? Silly isn't it?

[IMM]

Which is wrong.

[Andy Hall]

You did say in an earlier post that you tell CORGIs what to do......

As I said, a good lawyer can make a case that work done "in kind" is equivalent to a commercial transaction.

Certainly. I didn't say that it was sensible, right or justifiable.

The point was really that work done for a 3rd party, especially when it is related to the day job can be held to be for gain.

The law is not definitive in the SI and case law would apply. I was simply pointing out that since you are involved in the industry then your position in the event of a case being brought would be more tenuous than that of somebody who was not; and that in any case, the involvement of a 3rd party introduces the spectre that a commercial relationship *could* exist.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[David]

In article , IMM writes

Oh no, not another "friend"

[IMM]

Yes, David, you know some people, unlike yourself, have lots of them.

[geoff]

In message , IMM writes

I'm sure you'll find lots of them inside, don't forget the K Y jelly

[IMM]

[PoP]

I think you might be smiling on the other side of your face if they looked into National Minimum Wage regulations and decided to apply them rigorously.

Regardless of the fact that no money changed hands to do this job (or so you say....), you are obliged to pay yourself £4.50 per hour worked.

PoP

[usenet]

Where do you get the idea that "with courts tending to back the government's position"? As far as I know every IR35 case that has got to litigation has been lost by the IR, except one. The courts have agreed that the IR35 legislation is legal but the IR haven't actually won any cases where they have tried to apply it to people willing to defend the case (except the one case).

[IMM]

So, if when clearing the snow from my drive, I also clear the snow from the old lady living next door too, so she won't break her back. I then have to charge someone £4.40 for doing it?

[Dave Plowman]

Do you have a degree in snow clearing too?