Scrapping IR35 all very well – but what else?

by Calum Fuller

More from this author

08 Apr 2014

  • Comments

AFTER a rather withering report from the Lords on IR35, followed by calls for its abolition, it seems fair to assume those at the top of HM Revenue & Customs would not define the issues around this particular piece of legislation as the department's most edifying episode.

Indeed, for a rule designed to prevent people from lowering their tax bill by not being directly employed, the numbers and criticisms levelled against it are far from impressive.

There were 256 cases examined in 2012/13, compared to just 59 investigations into IR35 in the previous year, according to Bloomsbury Professional.

HMRC was heavily criticised at the time for the low number of investigations it had launched, but its response has seen revenues grow from £200,000 to £1.1m.

While that rise is huge proportionally, it's still - even to the untrained eye - meagre. It should be pointed out the taxman estimates the rule's deterrent effect safeguards closer to £550m, but the Lords found there was "no basis" to the claim.

But while the Lords suggested in their report the HMRC should "do more to justify the existence" of the rule, it did not call for an outright abolition - as contractors', freelancers' and independent professionals' group PCG did.
There is a good reason for that, and it is simply this: what is the alternative?

How can we guarantee a quality piece of legislation can be drawn up, enacted and enforced better than the existing one? The process by which fundamental change in the LLPs' sphere has gone through, for example, would suggest such an end is far from assured.

There is, of course, a degree of public interest following public and political anger when it was revealed 2,000 senior office holders of public bodies were revealed to be receiving payment off-payroll, while the BBC revealed in September 2013 that 148 of its 467 presenters were engaged in the same fashion.

But much of that comes from lack of enforcement, so I suggest this: Why not enforce it better?

Calum Fuller is tax correspondent for Accountancy Age and Financial Director

Visitor comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

Add your comment

We won't publish your address

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

  • Send

Charterhouse Accountants

Finance Officer

Charterhouse Accountants, Beaconsfield, Permanent, Full Time, £ Competitive




Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials


Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles

Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you

Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you



Why budgeting fails: One management system is not enough

If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.


iXBRL: Taking stock. Looking forward

In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.