This is not entirely true. If you worked in a nuclear facility where you were provided with specialist clothing then you would have a damned good case for saying it can't possibly be used privately.
Of course, if Hector pretends that's not the case ask him to come round to inspect your private collection of radioactive rods which you keep in your garden shed.....
You seem to work for a strange employer! In my 20+ years working for a company which required me to work/stay away from home I never once paid extra for overnight accomodation.
It is different if you tack on some additional overnight stays due to your wanting an extra day or twos holiday in the remote destination.
The micro management culture provides low grade jobs for the otherwise unemployable and performs the double purpose of raising revenue and depressing the unemployment stats.
.....where the one man owns 5% or more of the shares of the company, and the other shares don't belong to a "connected person".
You also managed to leave out (tut, tut...) Labour party supporters and doners. For some reason the Inland Revenue seem to leave them alone when it comes to tax affairs.
Remember the Bernie Eccleston affair? He donated £1M to Labour who got found out. They paid it back as you would expect of any honest political party. I heard a rumour that Eccleston may have "forgotten" to cash the cheque.....
IIRC, this is because they are deriving their income from only one source
- ie acting like an employee.
Perhaps it's the system that allows employers to treat what is staff in all but name as self employed. A truly self employed person will have several different sources of income. If a firm chooses to employ him on what amounts to a permanent basis - these days - they should be forced to pay the usual employer contributions and have the same responsibilities. Otherwise the taxpayer in general is subsidising that firm.
I fitted a ceiling fan in the bedroom, but because it's a modern house with a low ceiling and I'm six foot tall it whirls away about eight inches above my head, so I have to try and remember not to pull off an item of clothing over my head when standing underneath!
On browsing the fitting instructions there is a section that says "Caution: do not use ceiling fans and open gas heating appliances at the same time in the same room"... it doesn't say anything about it not being legal.
I missed that, you aren't I've used hotels 2-3 times per week since
1974 and never paid tax. It has to be an expense that's related to the job that anyone would incurr (customer in Inverness, say), and not to the individual ('cos he lives in the back of beyond, say).
"Fishter" wrote | > especially if you stock up on (soon to be non-compliant) black and red | > cable..... | This may be a really stupid question, but what is black and red being | replaced with?
Blue and brown - like flexes
| Why do you need to stock up on black and red?
Because if you use blue and brown, it will be obvious that it is new work and comes under the regulations. If you use black and red it will look like old work put in before the regulations came into force.
Pity the home owner who moves into a new house after next April then! There he will be, making out the wiring was done before April 2004 because it is black and red, and his wiring sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the blue and brown ;)
Not true. There are a great many IT consultants to date who have had active contracts with multiple concurrent "employers" who have been deemed to fall into IR35 regardless. You try finding a permanent employment position where your employer is happy to allow you to work for multiple companies! (I'm not talking about helping out one night a week at the local pub either).
Besides which, if these people are actually disguised employees then how come they don't get holiday and sick pay paid for by their employer, amongst other benefits?
See above.
I think we may be singing broadly from the same hymn sheet.
The solution as I see it should be simple. The employEE and employER could offer a choice at the start of the assignment declaring whether it is permanent or contract. If permanent then the EE gets the usual benefits and not as much money into their bank account. And the ER gets to pay the tax that is intended.
IR35 was the wrong solution to the problem I think. Defining the problem - many "so called" consultants took the mickey by paying a stupid low salary (many still do I believe) and then taking huge dividend payments, on which NI payments were not due.
So to combat that problem all they had to do was to declare that the first 'N' pounds of income (where 'N' was say 20K - but pick a number) had to be treated as salary regardless. After that they could do what they wanted with the rest - re-invest, divvies, whatever.
That way the rich and famous (David Beckham etc) would have to apply the rules the same as everyone else and there wouldn't be any argument possible on who was in and out.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.