Letters - The cost of Revenue assault on contractors

Further to your front-page article on self-employed building sub-contractors (31 October), I would like to stress the point even further.

We have 300 sub-contract clients and, if they were all to transfer to PAYE, my firm would no longer be viable. Certainly, we would have to lose staff and end up with an unwanted office on a long lease. Most sub-contractors abide by, or could very easily abide by, the self-employed rules. However, the Inland Revenue, with its usual over-the-top attitude, has targeted the contractors instead of the sub-contractors. This is undoubtedly because contractors will nearly always be happy to agree with the Revenue in exchange for a quiet life.

The accountants of sub-contractors, on the other hand, would be much less likely simply to accept a blanket ruling and would fight back. We have never had a construction industry sub-contractor go on PAYE in over 20 years, although the Revenue has tried to make us do so on many occasions.

GRAHAM BROADHEAD

Batley, Yorkshire

Addressing the real source of building fraud

With reference to your article ‘Revenue purge to hit construction workers’ (News, 7 November), my modest rural practice in Northern Ireland depends on the building trade in all its forms, not least on the sub-contracting fraternity. I am amazed at some of the vituperation heaped on the trade.

If, in fact, the trade is a hotbed of fraud, as alleged by the Inland Revenue, it is astonishing that I still keep the respect of my local tax district and am not subjected to continuous scrutiny by the dreaded Revenue ‘Special Offices’ across the water.

We have a major problem in the building trade in Northern Ireland, namely the legion of recipients of Republic of Ireland dole who work for low rates of pay on sites here. This practice is harmful to the honest tradesmen.

Nothing in this Revenue blitz addresses that problem. Rather, it seems this assault is designed to penalise genuine building firms and their tradesmen.

But why does the Revenue want to stop there. If it wants to meddle in third-party building-trade contracts, why doesn’t it follow the example of the Republic of Ireland and apply PAYE and/or a basic-rate deduction, say, to all government payouts to legal aid solicitors, privatisation advisers, doctors, dentists and pharmacists? If not, why not? For what is tax sauce for the building-trade goose must, in simple justice, surely be sauce for the middle-class gander?

PHILIP GORMLEY

Magherafelt, Co. Londonderry

Consultation of independent shareholders

My wife and I, being shareholders in some 20 companies, were interested to read your front-page report (24 October), that Sir Ronald Hampel has consulted up to 50 representative organisations in the City about the interests of shareholders. I would be interested to know how many private shareholders have been asked for their views. The fact is often overlooked that when directors appoint auditors and agree their remuneration, the directors are acting on behalf of the shareholders under a delegated authority by resolution at an annual general meeting.

RA PARFITT

Passfield, Hants

Calculating for the Bible’s age old question

With reference to ‘We Adam and Eve it’ (Taking Stock, 17 October), the Bible refers to man’s life expectancy as three score years and ten, or four ‘if strong’. Thus, to my mind, Alan Alford is 132,757.14% inaccurate in his claim that Adam lived to be 93,000 (or, alternatively, out by a relatively modest 116,115%, based on 80 years).

I trust his accounts are more accurate – or does this explain his need to write Gods of the New Millennium (which I have not read)?

CHRISTOPHER MALONE