Ryanair Pilots - The Taxman Cometh.....

[Herc708]

From the (Irish) The Sunday Post ....

......Revenue officials believe that some individuals in these sectors are seeking to avoid PAYE payments by incorrectly classifying themselves as self-employed.

It is looking in particular at airline pilots, many of whom are officially registered as self employed but who work for only one airline.....

Full article here :

Revenue targets doctors, pilots and university staff | The Post (http://www.sbpost.ie/news/revenue-targets-doctors-pilots-and-university-staff-51350.html)

[lorel]

It has to come out one day!
I'm surprised how such a big airline can get away this.

[jimsmitty01]

I've paid 1500e towards PAYE in the last 6 months, how is that avoiding it?

[zerotohero]

Another Ryanair pilot hunt warning! lol dont see those very often!

Well I am not Irish, dont work there or live there and pay tax in my home country

have fun.

[Mikehotel152]

Er, old news....RYR pilots have been paying PAYE for years now.

[Mikehotel152]

The same's true for BRK pilots.

[HighLow]

I am delighted

I can't wait to see the Revenue try to make sense of the farse that is the situation between DD and the BRK pilots in Ireland :)

"Hey Listen to ME! you have to pay 3 percent of your WAGE/SALARY/FEE (call it what u like) and you can only use the accountants of MY CHOICE !"

It is not the pilots at fault here, far from it, it's big business trying to avoid their obligations as EMPLOYERS.

[turbine100]

France and Norway are looking into Ryanair relating to pilots and taxes.

It may have been something relating to not paying local taxes in those countries and not liking them paying in Ireland or something.

[kick the tires]

I've paid 1500e towards PAYE in the last 6 months, how is that avoiding it?

It depends upon what your Gross earnings were for the same period, the statement you give is meaningless without this info.

[D O Guerrero]

It's all very well investigating the individuals concerned, but in the case of BRK, how about actually investigating the businesses behind it? I don't choose to be self employed by an organisation that wants to have its cake and eat it, but I do reserve the right to take advantage of the system that I am unwillingly a part of. My accountant sees to it that I pay the absolute bare minimum tax that I can get away with. I'm quite happy with that - the state goes out of its way (in the UK) to profit as much as possible from aviation training and then wants a kickback when my personal investment of time, money and effort is paying off.
If tax authorities have a problem with this - kick Ryanair, not the pilots.

[Bruce Wayne]

the state goes out of its way (in the UK) to profit as much as possible from aviation training


from aviation as a whole.

dont forget the joy of APD, which as the former Chancellor admitted was sheer revenue generation to fund the banking bailouts.

[Whippersnapper]

I've paid 1500e towards PAYE in the last 6 months, how is that avoiding it?

Unless you have done your ATPL or type rating within the last tax year, and are claiming back their costs as expenses, then you are evading taxes. As a rule of thumb, you should be paying about 30% of your earnings in tax and National Insurance Contributions. I doubt you only earned Eu4500 in a six month period.

[Bruce Wayne]

Unless you have done your ATPL or type rating within the last tax year, and are claiming back their costs as expenses, then you are evading taxes. As a rule of thumb, you should be paying about 30% of your earnings in tax and National Insurance Contributions. I doubt you only earned Eu4500 in a six month period.


Rubbish.


tax evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means.


It is perfectly legal and acceptable to mitigate taxation liability implimenting the rules and regulations set forth by the taxation jurisdiction applicable.

Avoiding / Not paying tax on amounts due is illegal, reducing taxation liability in accordance with the applicable laws set forth is not.

Ergo, your claim that the previous poster is evading tax by his contributions is a false accuastion of criminal activity without factual evidence support your allegation and as such, considered libel.


libel (Written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.

[737Jock]

Haha come on Bruce Wayne, are you willing to show me how I could legally reduce my tax liability down to €250 a month, on an FR salary. and don't tell me I should put 90% of my salary in a pension or some other scheme where it can't be touched.

[Bruce Wayne]

737jock,

you are missing the point by a country mile.

[737Jock]

And what point would that be?

1. You are a snob?
2. You felt an urge to impress people with the definition of libel, without actually looking at the statement of only paying 250 euros of tax per month on a fulltime FR salary which is implied in that post.
3. You are trying to scare people with the definition of libel? While in fact proving that the relevant statement is libel in court is not easy/feasible or in anyone's interest.
4. You would probably be willing to wait at a hospital entrance to hand out your business card hoping you could sue someone in court?
5. All of the above...

Offcourse all the above options are completely hypothetical but immediately spring to my mind after reading your posts.

[jimsmitty01]

My point is, I am not evading paying contributions. HOW MUCH I pay is a completely different point.

The question here is not whether I am avoiding paying tax. I am paying on average 15% at the moment.

The question is whether I should be classified as self employed.

So my statement is correct, I am NOT avoiding paying. I am paying the correct amount for someone who is self employed (and yes the TR is offsetting the taxes at the moment)

Either way I didn't create this situation. This is the way FR works, and since they do not assist me in anyway shape or form, I need the extra cash ;)

[jasonjdr]

Bruce,

:rolleyes:Your getting your terminology mixed up. ´Evasion´is the the illegal one, and ´Avoidance´is the legal one. Google the definitions if you dont believe me.....

So hold fire on the ´libel´claims cowboy :eek:

.....and 30% monthly is probably about right for PAYE & NI if a low rate tax payer just entering the high rate bracket. Which is what a RYR pilot income is within the first 18 months... so can´t see what you are rubbishing....I´ve prob missed your point aswell, so pls enlighten us all.

737Jock is partly right in his posts re the whole contracted to one employer point. Pls see anything related to IR35 if you base your business in the UK. There are ways around it, but I am not going in to that.

[QUOTE]On 20 May 2010 the new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition Government's Programme for Government announced a commitment to "review IR 35, as part of a wholesale review of all small business taxation, and seek to replace it with simpler measures that prevent tax avoidance but do not place undue administrative burdens or uncertainty on the self-employed, or restrict labour market flexibility./QUOTE]

In its current form the Govt are chasing a lost cause on this. It has been in place since 2000 and they have raised less than 5% of the tax revenue expected by its implementation, and by and large it has proven largely un-enforcable. Which means it will be prob be reviewed (as the Govt will be trying not to miss out on a quick buck). But it was mainly in response to the huge growth in IT contractors at the end of the 90´s, which has subsequently all but died off and most have moved back into full time employment. So overall the contract market is not what it once was (plus those that were caught and penalised went into voluntary arrangements and bankruptcy so the payback has not been great). Given that nothing has really been done over the past 10yrs, might mean that nothing will change in the future. But if it does be aware and flexible enough to move with the changes. :p

[Bruce Wayne]

jason,

please read above.

whippersnapper wrote:


Unless you have done your ATPL or type rating within the last tax year, and are claiming back their costs as expenses, then you are evading taxes.


i interjected:


tax evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means.


and also:

It is perfectly legal and acceptable to mitigate taxation liability implimenting the rules and regulations set forth by the taxation jurisdiction applicable.

Avoiding / Not paying tax on amounts due is illegal, reducing taxation liability in accordance with the applicable laws set forth is not.


and added:

[The] claim that the previous poster is evading tax by his contributions is a false accuastion of criminal activity without factual evidence support your allegation and as such, considered libel.


so where exactly did you get:

Your getting your terminology mixed up. ´Evasion´is the the illegal one, and ´Avoidance´is the legal one.

So hold fire on the ´libel´claims cowboy

i reiterate:

libel (Written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.


whippersnappers assertion that 'jimsmitty' is evading taxes could well be considered libel.

unless whippersnapper has in his posession jimsmitty's tax declarations and factual details of his income, then the assertion of criminal activity is unsupported, unfounded and incorrect.

It is making a claim, expressly stated, implied to be factual that gives an individual a negative image.

As such the claim IS libel.

I suggest you read the posts before also making an incorrect citation.




NB: This board is for professional pilots, hence the name Professional Pilots Rumour Network. Many websites have been forced to shut down over libel issues and the incurred legal liabilities.

1. It would therefore be prudent NOT to subject Pprune to such liabilities. It protects the poster as well as the forum as a medium.

2. It is highly unprofessional for a commercial pilot to make unfounded and false allegations against other commercial pilots of criminal activity. Much less against any other professional.

3. if a person has certain dislike toward toward a specific carrier then present a cogent and relevent argument to support that position DO NOT make spurious, unfounded allegations of criminality toward other pilots that are employed by that carrier.

4. Points 1,2 and 3 above reflect on all of us as professionals, such behaviour detracts from this and serves to damage the industry and standing as professionals.

[Bruce Wayne]

737Jock is partly right in his posts re the whole contracted to one employer point. Pls see anything related to IR35 if you base your business in the UK. There are ways around it, but I am not going in to that.

On 20 May 2010 the new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition Government's Programme for Government announced a commitment to "review IR 35, as part of a wholesale review of all small business taxation, and seek to replace it with simpler measures that prevent tax avoidance but do not place undue administrative burdens or uncertainty on the self-employed, or restrict labour market flexibility./QUOTE]

In its current form the Govt are chasing a lost cause on this. It has been in place since 2000 and they have raised less than 5% of the tax revenue expected by its implementation, and by and large it has proven largely un-enforcable. Which means it will be prob be reviewed (as the Govt will be trying not to miss out on a quick buck). But it was mainly in response to the huge growth in IT contractors at the end of the 90´s, which has subsequently all but died off and most have moved back into full time employment. So overall the contract market is not what it once was (plus those that were caught and penalised went into voluntary arrangements and bankruptcy so the payback has not been great). Given that nothing has really been done over the past 10yrs, might mean that nothing will change in the future. But if it does be aware and flexible enough to move with the changes


I, like yourself and 737Jock am well aware of the stipulations set forth by HMRC. The situation *IS* a mess without doubt and that is down to HMRC to resolve (if involving a UK tax payer).

However, the point, is that unless you have categroical documentation evidencing how how many hours 'jimsmitty' flew, what his declared income is, what his taxation status is and have copies of of his taxation declarations, then neither you, nor i, nor 737Jock, nor whippersnapper can categorically state *FOR FACT* that jimsmitty has knowingly and deliberately falsified his tax liabilities or not.

As such, if there are any discrepencies, it is down to HMRC to make an investigation into an individual and determine evasion. It is for HMRC to allege 'evasion' of taxes and for the individual concerned to justify their position with HMRC.

It is NOT for one professional pilot without intimate knowledge of another pilots income and taxation status to make an allegation of criminality in public.

[Bruce Wayne]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I bet you are such a bad lawyer, you are completely unable to look beyond legalities.
You must be such a pleasure to fly with knowing all the Ops manuals by heart.


:D

wow, did you manage that post all by yourself or did you have help from the village idiot ?

[737Jock]

:8Now that is libel....

[Bruce Wayne]

:ok:

touché

[jasonjdr]

Oh god what a bore...

DC comics are probably right now talking to their lawyers, for defamation of character. :E Batman will never seem the same again...:uhoh:

[Dan Winterland]

If there's one thing in life which is certain, it's taxes. And if HMRC investigate your case and make a ruling, it's rarely in you favour!

[A2QFI]

No, I think that is a question.

[despegue]

Some seem to forget that it is always the EMPLOYER who is the responsible for false-self-employment, NOT the employee.
Moreover, the employee can claim all benefits that he should have received during the years of "self-employment".

[potkettleblack]

That may well be the case but expect payback from FR or BRK down the line if they are forced to cough up moolah. You don't seriously think they would hand over their profits willingly without getting their pound of flesh plus a bit more for inconvenience sake do you?

[jimsmitty01]

Thanks Bruce!

But glad this thread is back towards whether BRK guys should be self employed.

Now I am not 100% sure on this but I "heard" that this whole deal about being classified as self employed was created in consultation with the revenue.

Before you say I am mad. I have no proof, I just heard. The logical reason for this, is that until a year or two ago there was no manadatory accountants and no oversight with regards to what BRK pilots did with their income. Many therefore did not bother paying taxes at all either in Ireland or the UK.

Now that we all have to pay tax, albeit at a lower level than if we were on a FR contract. I thought this was a compromise between FR, Brk and the revenue?

Again I don't have any evidence but this is what I was led to believe.

[Prophead]

The one employer rule would not in itself make someone 'employed' rather than 'self-employed'. If the pilot is flying all his annual limit in terms of hours for Ryanair then he could not work for anyone else. In the current climate he might not even be able to find other work. That would not make him self employed.

There are many items affecting your contract that can determine your status and none of them are set in stone. Working for one client is only one of these. Others inclube being able to send someone else to work in your place without having to get approval from the client. I dont think they would be happy if you sent you brothe/sister/mother in one day to fly your sectors but that would not make you 'employed'.

The main thing they want to see is how you are treated differently from the full time employees. This may be in the form of extra fees you have had to pay that an employee hasn't. It might be you are not subject to staff appraisals. Even things like not being invited to a xmas staff party can help determine your status. Things like not being in a company pension scheme all definately help as well.

What can really get you caught as being employed is when the company pays your training. When i hear of Ryanair pilots having to buy uniform, pay for training, hotels etc. I have always assumed this was due to the above and what the individual has paid in expenses they have more than saved in taxes.

[Whippersnapper]

Take a deep breath, everyone! I'm not trying to accuse anyone of any criminal activity - I'm just stating that unless you have managed to claim back training costs, then Eu15oo is not the right amount of tax in six months and you need to go through the figures again to make sure you pay the correct amount. like I said, a typical amount is about 1/3 of your earnings.

It's amazing how defensive some people get, banding around accusations of libel when someone is just making a minor point.

[D O Guerrero]

Yes Whippersnapper, it is amazing how defensive some people get...