PDA

View Full Version : Panic Among the BBC Luvvies


ORAC
16th Feb 2018, 05:14
I wonder how many other “contractors” working for various arms of media and government quangos will be talking nervously to their accountants and bank managers....

BBC tax panic as Look North presenter Christa Ackroyd told to pay £400,000 bill (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-tax-panic-as-look-north-presenter-christa-ackroyd-told-to-pay-400-000-bill-sqd9c6506)

Dozens of BBC presenters face being forced to settle substantial tax bills after a tribunal ruled that a news anchor must pay more than £400,000.

Christa Ackroyd, 60, hosted the regional news programme Look North for 12 years and was paid as a contractor through a personal service company to minimise her tax bills. HMRC argued, however, that from 2006 to 2013 she was effectively a BBC employee and was therefore liable for £419,151 in unpaid income tax and national insurance.

A first-tier tax tribunal yesterday found in favour of HMRC and ordered the presenter to pay the bill. The tribunal judge said: “We do not consider that Ms Ackroyd could fairly be described as being in business on her own account.” The ruling is a blow to other BBC presenters who declared themselves to be self-employed. It was disclosed in 2016 that more than 100 of the corporation’s past and present employees were under investigation for alleged tax avoidance over their use of personal service companies. Presenters for other media organisations are also affected.......

Judge Cannan accepted Ms Ackroyd’s evidence that the BBC suggested that she be paid through a personal service company after poaching her from Calendar, the ITV rival. Her accountant advised that the arrangement was in order. The tribunal found that she was not self-employed, because she was obliged to work at least 225 days a year and the BBC had the right to specify what services her private company would provide. Under tax rules a person is selfemployed if they can decide what work they do and when.

An HMRC spokesman said: “Employment status is never a matter of choice; it is always dictated by the facts and when the wrong tax is being paid we put things right.” Many freelance BBC presenters have been moved on to staff contracts after rules were changed last year to make the corporation responsible for deciding their tax status.

A BBC spokesman said: “The use of personal service companies is entirely legitimate and common practice across the industry as it provides flexibility for both individuals and organisations. An independent review conducted in 2012 found that there was no evidence that the BBC had attempted to avoid income tax or NIC by contracting in this way.”.......

VP959
16th Feb 2018, 06:31
I'm frankly amazed at the gross stupidity this reveals. I looked into the various ways of working as a self-employed contractor after I retired, and one thing was very clear, the key definition of being self-employed as far as tax and NI is concerned is the one that the tax tribunal have highlighted. If you are working for a company or organisation that sets the days you work, then you're not. If you are working for a company that sets you a target date for delivering a package of work, but doesn't stipulate which days you work in order to deliver that, then you are.

One has to wonder at how independent that 2012 review was. In my case I knew very little about working as a self-employed contractor from the "working end" so went to an accountant to seek advice. If a small accountant used to dealing with the accounts of self-employed people knew the rules when he explained them to me, very clearly, in 2010, then how on earth could a review in 2012 not have picked this up?

From what I remember of hiring in consultants through agencies, back when I was working, we always had to specify a package, or packages, of work, with deliverables, which is what they were employed to deliver. We never had control over when the worked in detail, other than requests that they should attend certain meetings, perhaps.

It seems as if the BBC was trying to avoid paying, NI, pensions, holiday and sick pay for these individuals, every bit as much as they were trying to reduce their tax bill. Why else would the BBC suggest that a new presenter work for them via a personal service company?

4mastacker
16th Feb 2018, 06:52
BBC response looks like their standard denial that they have done anything wrong.

VP959
16th Feb 2018, 07:06
BBC response looks like their standard denial that they have done anything wrong.

It does indeed, more so because it contradicts the findings of the tax tribunal.

This quote:

A BBC spokesman said: “The use of personal service companies is entirely legitimate and common practice across the industry as it provides flexibility for both individuals and organisations. An independent review conducted in 2012 found that there was no evidence that the BBC had attempted to avoid income tax or NIC by contracting in this way.”.......

with my added highlight, seems to indicate that the BBC are either stupid or not telling the truth. The tribunal found that the BBC had stipulated 225 working days a year (the normal employee working period is around this figure) and so, by their own definition, they were not providing flexibility to either the individuals or the organisation, they were treating them as employees. I wouldn't mind betting that 225 working days a year is pretty much what BBC employees work, as that's a 365 day year, minus 104 days for weekends, minus 36 working days for leave and public holidays. It's pretty close to the contracted time I worked back when I was working full time.

PDR1
16th Feb 2018, 07:09
This isn't a new case - it's been running for several years. She took professional advice and was told IR35 didn't apply to her, advice which (from a brief look at her circumstances) surprises me because she had no right of substitution and essentially worked in only one job, so "self employed" would have been a hard sell. But it wouldn't surprise me if she could recover some or all of her costs from the PII of the accountants who told her she could be self-employed.

PDR

UniFoxOs
16th Feb 2018, 07:10
This has been going on for many years - well back in the last century a "self-employed" contractor who only worked for one "customer" was considered to be an employee and treated as such for tax purposes. When I first became a freelance (1990) I knew it then and was careful to show at least three customers to avoid this problem.

No sympathy at all.

Daysleeper
16th Feb 2018, 07:32
Forget the BBC I'd have thought the headline should read "panic amongst many pilot contractors".

This case revolved around the three cores of IR35 Mutuality of Obligation, Substitution and Supervision/Direction/ Control.

Basically if you turn up every month and they pay you every month and they control what you do and no one else can do it...you're an employee. She failed all three tests but then so would many pilot contractors.

PDR1
16th Feb 2018, 07:34
This has been going on for many years - well back in the last century a "self-employed" contractor who only worked for one "customer" was considered to be an employee and treated as such for tax purposes.


That was the "abuse" which Gordo sought to stamp out when IR35* was first released in 1999. There are many senior BBC journalists and on-screen staff who do many different jobs (write for newspapers, write books, do panel shows for other channels and appear on TV/Radio news) and for these people it can be sensible to be self-employed partly because it makes the tax, NI and Pension consequences less complex and partly because it avoids any risk of confusion about the "employer's rights and responsibilities" towards their other work.

But of course there are others who just do it as tax-avoidance. We are being led to believe this one falls much more into the latter than the former group.

PDR

* Which was actually just a press release reminding people what the law actually says - not ana actual change in the law

vctenderness
16th Feb 2018, 07:43
Never heard of her however I bet that whenever a story broke regarding someone’s tax avoidance scheme she would be howling in revulsion at these evil people not paying ‘their fair share’.

dsc810
16th Feb 2018, 07:59
This isn't a new case - it's been running for several years. She took professional advice and was told IR35 didn't apply to her, advice which (from a brief look at her circumstances) surprises me because she had no right of substitution and essentially worked in only one job, so "self employed" would have been a hard sell. But it wouldn't surprise me if she could recover some or all of her costs from the PII of the accountants who told her she could be self-employed.

PDR

The right of substitution is just one thing that needs to be looked at as a whole when deciding whether IR35 applies on any contract.
For instance you may contract a specialist in their field to do some work for you and you would indeed expect that they would not instead substitute the office junior to do the work instead. That you would specify the work to be done solely by the specialist does not in itself make them an employee of yourself.

cdtaylor_nats
16th Feb 2018, 08:01
£400,000 tax in 8 years? How much was the BBC paying a regional news person?

westernhero
16th Feb 2018, 08:22
A cool £163,233 according to the mail, more than the PM BBC presenter made to pay £420,000 in HMRC clampdown | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5396511/BBC-presenter-pay-420-000-HMRC-clampdown.html)

PDR1
16th Feb 2018, 09:10
The right of substitution is just one thing that needs to be looked at as a whole when deciding whether IR35 applies on any contract.
For instance you may contract a specialist in their field to do some work for you and you would indeed expect that they would not instead substitute the office junior to do the work instead. That you would specify the work to be done solely by the specialist does not in itself make them an employee of yourself.

Absolutely. Having a right of substitution isn't mandatory, but if you can demonstrate you do have a real right of substitution then that alone allows you to claim self-employed status. In 2003 I had a subbie working for me who was getting a little nervous on the IR35 front, but our contracts have a clause allowing substitution (within the ability of the business to accomodate it) so when he went on holiday he provided a substitute for two weeks - he gave us notice so we could do the security clearence, and he brought the guy up to speed (in his own time) on the project sufficiently to allow the three specific tasks to be completed. There were no problems and he had his evidence.

Mind you, he probably didn't need it because the previous year when he first worked for me he came through an agency which went bust owing him £3k in back-pay. So he was able to show evidence that he carried "genuine business risk" - whilst not as definitive as a real right of substitution, it's pretty close!

PDR

Andy_S
16th Feb 2018, 09:24
But of course there are others who just do it as tax-avoidance. We are being led to believe this one falls much more into the latter than the former group.

Indeed. Good luck to anyone who takes calculated measures to minimise their tax liability, but they shouldn't complain if these come back and bite them.

Krystal n chips
16th Feb 2018, 09:35
I'm frankly amazed at the gross stupidity this reveals. I looked into the various ways of working as a self-employed contractor after I retired, and one thing was very clear, the key definition of being self-employed as far as tax and NI is concerned is the one that the tax tribunal have highlighted. If you are working for a company or organisation that sets the days you work, then you're not. If you are working for a company that sets you a target date for delivering a package of work, but doesn't stipulate which days you work in order to deliver that, then you are.

One has to wonder at how independent that 2012 review was. In my case I knew very little about working as a self-employed contractor from the "working end" so went to an accountant to seek advice. If a small accountant used to dealing with the accounts of self-employed people knew the rules when he explained them to me, very clearly, in 2010, then how on earth could a review in 2012 not have picked this up?

From what I remember of hiring in consultants through agencies, back when I was working, we always had to specify a package, or packages, of work, with deliverables, which is what they were employed to deliver. We never had control over when the worked in detail, other than requests that they should attend certain meetings, perhaps.



Hmmm ? that's interesting to learn, in several respects.

How were you paid, and by whom for example, when working for the BBC in a capacity totally unrelated to your former area of expertise with the Gov't and likewise the stint with RTE. I believe the Broadwater Farm estate was mentioned with regard to the former for example.

Also, having worked as a contractor who was set very specific days / times and hours to be worked, I never had any problems with being defined as a contractor.

As for the infamous IR35, for those on here taking the opportunity to indulge in the opportunity to berate the BBC, this little ruling also affected a considerable number of engineers who were happily earning a living on "the circuit " when it was in its glorious prime.

The moral being you didn't / don't have to be paid a high level of remuneration to have been affected.

M.Mouse
16th Feb 2018, 10:07
It all started in the 70s with the building sub-contractors having to obtain a '714' certificate from HMRC to show to the main contractor that as a sub-contractor you were confirmed by HMRC as paying your NI and tax and could be paid in full instead of the contractor having to deduct around 30% of your money to send directly to HMRC. So called 'false self-employment' was rife.

Some years later IT contractors working normal business hours and for just one company were hit and my neighbour had to become employed by the company he worked for instead of avoiding PAYE etc as a contractor.

There is a steady drive to eliminate false self-employment.

SMT Member
16th Feb 2018, 10:39
Shouldn't 'self-employed' pilots, contracted by an agency to deliver all their available working hours to one airline, be amongst the first in line to feel the pinch?

VP959
16th Feb 2018, 10:54
It all started in the 70s with the building sub-contractors having to obtain a '714' certificate from HMRC to show to the main contractor that as a sub-contractor you were confirmed by HMRC as paying your NI and tax and could be paid in full instead of the contractor having to deduct around 30% of your money to send directly to HMRC. So called 'false self-employment' was rife.

Some years later IT contractors working normal business hours and for just one company were hit and my neighbour had to become employed by the company he worked for instead of avoiding PAYE etc as a contractor.

There is a steady drive to eliminate false self-employment.


When I was working we had IT sub-contractors, but my understanding is that their whole area of work had been contracted out to the IT company they worked for. I assumed that the contract was "for provision of IT services" to a defined contractual requirement, rather than for the provision of staff to run the IT section.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Feb 2018, 11:13
I wonder how many other “contractors” working for various arms of media and government quangos will be talking nervously to their accountants and bank managers....
Fair enough to fight IR35 - lots of people do win, after all - but it's hardly credible that a freelancer these days isn't well up in all the implications.

Dr Jekyll
16th Feb 2018, 11:42
Was she claiming to be self employed? Or was she an employee of a personal service company?

sitigeltfel
16th Feb 2018, 12:10
I once employed a homeworker on a three day week basis. She claimed to be self employed and she had the correct paperwork, headed invoices etc. After a year my accountant came to me and said he had noticed that all her invoices had consecutive numbers, suggesting I was now unwittingly her sole employer. I asked her about this and she admitted she had stopped taking other work to concentrate on ours.
I told her we needed to change her employment status but she insisted she wanted to stay self employed.
Not happy about this I contacted HMRC and it opened a can of worms that took the best part of another year to rectify. HMRC were total bastards to deal with, trying to put the blame on me as an easy target with a successful business to milk. Often they would turn up without ID and demand to see our accounts, they would be shown the way out.
It was eventually resolved without me suffering financial penalty, but nothing compensates for the wasted time and stress these mini Mandarins generate.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Feb 2018, 12:15
Was she claiming to be self employed? Or was she an employee of a personal service company?
Employment status is highly technical and is rarely reported accurately by the media. The reports I've seen say that she was using a PSC (which has no legal definition, by the way) but was claiming to be SE rather than an employee of the PSC. That's a weird one which I haven't heard before - normally the route to try to avoid paying taxes is not to be an employee but to take dividends (it works for some people but not others, and you'd better have access to decent specialist employment status lawyers).

rog747
16th Feb 2018, 12:16
if HMRC have now found she was an ''employee'' then of the BBC and not a contract worker and have asked her for all the tax and NI for that period then the BBC (or her employment agency) will have to pay her any sick pay + holiday pay etc plus any maternity leave if she went off in that time and had a baby

and all the rest of the crew too if this is so........

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Feb 2018, 12:17
Not happy about this I contacted HMRC and it opened a can of worms that took the best part of another year to rectify.
Precisely why many businesses simply refuse to hire people on a SE basis and insist on them using a PSC. That way (at least until the most recent batch of changes) all the HMRC hassle involves the freelancer and the client is pretty well out of it.

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Feb 2018, 12:18
if HMRC have now found she was an ''employee'' then of the BBC and not a contract worker and have asked her for all the tax and NI for that period then BBC will have to pay her any sick pay + holiday pay etc plus any maternity leave if she went off in that time and had a baby
Not according to the reports I read (which may well have been wrong) - it was the PSC that HMRC went after, not the client, and the employment relationship established was with the PSC.

rog747
16th Feb 2018, 12:31
Not according to the reports I read (which may well have been wrong) - it was the PSC that HMRC went after, not the client, and the employment relationship established was with the PSC.

well then if that's the case then the PSC ''agency'' have now been found by HMRC to have ''employed'' her - so they may well now have to pay her holiday + any sickness pay etc

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Feb 2018, 12:38
well then if that's the case then the PSC ''agency'' have now been found by HMRC to have ''employed'' her - so they will have to pay her holiday + any sickness pay etc
Yeah yeah, and I'm supposed to take a 30 minute lunch break when I'm working for my company, but who's going to enforce? - I'm not going to sue or prosecute my own company for my own actions.

rog747
16th Feb 2018, 12:49
Yeah yeah, and I'm supposed to take a 30 minute lunch break when I'm working for my company, but who's going to enforce? - I'm not going to sue or prosecute my own company for my own actions.

if she is now being asked to pay her full NI contributions based on now being termed an employee then she could well be entitled to all her accrued holiday pay and and maybe sickness she had - that's the law and HMRC are playing ''the law'' card here then now the company that employed her has to play ball too - if she is now deemed PAYE then that will be the case

no idea what you are on about lunch breaks - she's not now deemed self employed - so not sure what tangent you have gone off on !!

Gertrude the Wombat
16th Feb 2018, 13:27
no idea what you are on about lunch breaks - she's not now deemed self employed - so not sure what tangent you have gone off on !!
She has, in the reports I've read (which as I need to keep saying could be complete bollocks, because employment status is highly technical), been found to be an employee of her PSC. It's nobody's business to force her PSC to pay her holiday pay if she doesn't put in a complaint, just like it's nobody's business to force my PSC to let me have 30 minutes for lunch if I don't put in a complaint. And it wouldn't make any difference if it was, because "holiday pay" is just pay and is taxed at the same rates as any other pay.

rog747
16th Feb 2018, 13:51
She has, in the reports I've read (which as I need to keep saying could be complete bollocks, because employment status is highly technical), been found to be an employee of her PSC. It's nobody's business to force her PSC to pay her holiday pay if she doesn't put in a complaint, just like it's nobody's business to force my PSC to let me have 30 minutes for lunch if I don't put in a complaint. And it wouldn't make any difference if it was, because "holiday pay" is just pay and is taxed at the same rates as any other pay.

oh yes i agree it is she who will now have to pursue her ''employer'' (the PSC) to get back holiday pay etc entitled to her -

if the case is (and as you say so far what you have read maybe all B*****x & misconstrued) that she is now a PAYE earner then in all likelihood she does has a valid claim

highflyer40
16th Feb 2018, 14:09
But she would be the sole owner of the PSC, so she would be paying herself. It’s not logical.

I think you are thinking she worked through a third party but the PSC would just be a shell she set up to work through

rog747
16th Feb 2018, 14:22
oh the irony then

The term PSC ‘personal service companies’ was devised by HMRC following the introduction of IR35 by the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, who originally proposed the legislation in the March 1999 pre-budget, but now the HMRC chooses to investigate users of a PSC for tax affairs anomalies

honestly HMRC really do want it all their own way don't they lol

krismiler
17th Feb 2018, 01:19
Taxi companies get around the employment regulations as well by asking drivers to accept jobs through the dispatch system instead of simply assigning them. Job is offered to a driver which he may or may not accept = self employed. Job is assigned to a driver = employee.

There are some areas where self employment is genuine and in both parties interests. A company may not need a specialist full time, preferring to hire expertise on an ad hoc or limited set hours basis. A contractor may find he can charge premium rates if he spreads his time around different companies. A whole cake works out cheaper than buying the individual slices but if you only want a small piece why waste money.

Ryanair must be getting quite nervous as their employment practices are obviously designed to get around the system and they would be an excellent example to everyone else if they were brought down.

Trossie
17th Feb 2018, 06:08
It would be amusing if someone could draw up a collection of quotes from BBC presenters on the BBC about people avoiding tax. Especially quotes from those presenters who are avoiding tax! I think that there's a quote somewhere about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck from others' eyes.

Krystal n chips
17th Feb 2018, 07:37
It would be amusing if someone could draw up a collection of quotes from BBC presenters on the BBC about people avoiding tax. Especially quotes from those presenters who are avoiding tax! I think that there's a quote somewhere about removing the log from your eye before removing the speck from others' eyes.

Feel free to make this mission your new calling in life with the potential for the results to be enshrined in posterity for evermore.

Thereafter, building on the expertise gained, how about another list comprising of those virtuous pillars of society who are beyond reproach .....and HMRC ( in contrast to the demand for £6 one received recently that is )

No need to mention names here, just use the letter of the alphabet.

Thus, for example, "Lord A "...."prominent Tory donor " would make a perfect start ! .

Heathrow Harry
17th Feb 2018, 07:50
the gross abuse of PSC's was started in the IT industry - industry magazines ran ads from companies yelling the advantages of tax avoidance etc - no wonder HMRC cracked down

for IR 35 there is no one test so be very very careful -

We identified around 20 items they can (and will) take into consideration

The best safeguard is to have a number of different employers over an 18 month period but control of work, do you have a company phone, do you appear on the internal phone list, do you hand out company business cards, is holiday paid etc etc are all "tests" the courts will look to. Contracts should NOT have any form of automatic roll-over

basically if you look like an employee and behave like an employee you are toast if they come calling (or someone informs on you - which is how the Revenue get on to most of the really egregious cases)

It really isn't hard to stay clean as long as you think about it

Gertrude the Wombat
17th Feb 2018, 08:20
The best safeguard is to have a number of different employers over an 18 month period
"Clients", please, not "employers". And work from home, using you own office, your own kit, have your own marketing collateral (you mentioned business cards but then there's you company web site and so on), ect ect ... and then buy IR35 investigation insurance, from a reputable trade association, not one of the cowboy firms, so that if you do get attacked you've got a specialist employment status barrister on your side.

Trossie
17th Feb 2018, 09:37
Feel free to make this mission your new calling in life with the potential for the results to be enshrined in posterity for evermore.

Thereafter, building on the expertise gained, how about another list comprising of those virtuous pillars of society who are beyond reproach .....and HMRC ( in contrast to the demand for £6 one received recently that is )

No need to mention names here, just use the letter of the alphabet.

Thus, for example, "Lord A "...."prominent Tory donor " would make a perfect start ! .

My, my! It does amuse me how one does attempt to sound so posh when one is a 'class warrior'!

No attempt on my side to bring party politics into this (yet), old boy! I would just like to see the hypocrisy of these presenters reading out news items on tax avoidance while they themselves are so heavily involved in it! Or does the extent of this start getting a bit close to the boundary between avoidance and evasion?

artschool
17th Feb 2018, 09:47
on one hand I think its funny because despite being paid a eye watering salary for what is a menial job she still didn't want to pay the tax. so deserves what she gets.

on the other hand it does make a mockery of the tax system that treats people in different ways ie self employed versus employed. when the reality is there can be little difference between the two in some occasions.

rog747
17th Feb 2018, 10:31
on one hand I think its funny because despite being paid a eye watering salary for what is a menial job she still didn't want to pay the tax. so deserves what she gets.

on the other hand it does make a mockery of the tax system that treats people in different ways ie self employed versus employed. when the reality is there can be little difference between the two in some occasions.


but the thing is NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY until the very recent years of knee jerks of any of us now being seen as a tax avoider pariah wanted to pay tax at highest rates, or in fact any tax at all if one could get away with it -
AND that was all actively encouraged as we know by financial advisors all over

we all did it if we could

no one - and I challenge any of you out there that over the past 40 years of our careers that we did not seek ways to get out of paying as much tax as possible - and that goes from the very top to down here at the bottom of the income tax heap.

so get over yourselves about being high and mighty because in the past we all sought to pay as little tax to the HMRC as possible = FACT

Gertrude the Wombat
17th Feb 2018, 10:36
no one - and I challenge any of you out there that over the past 40 years of our careers that we did not seek ways to get out of paying as much tax as possible - and that goes from the very top to down here at the bottom of the tax heap.
As a freelancer I paid more tax than I needed to. Instead of paying myself below the NI threshold and taking it all as dividends, I paid about half of it as salary (enough to live on) and took the rest as dividends every other year (the "every other year" was higher rate tax threshold optimisation).

So I paid less tax than had I been a conventional employee with the same income (not that such a thing was on offer, of course, that's the whole point) but more tax than I needed to.

(Unless you claim that in paying myself a decent salary I was simply seeking to remain under the IR35 investigation radar, so it was simply a gamble that paid off.)

artschool
17th Feb 2018, 10:48
but the thing is NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY until the very recent years of knee jerks of any of us now being seen as a tax avoider pariah wanted to pay tax at highest rates, or in fact any tax at all if one could get away with it -
AND that was all actively encouraged as we know by financial advisors all over

we all did it if we could

no one - and I challenge any of you out there that over the past 40 years of our careers that we did not seek ways to get out of paying as much tax as possible - and that goes from the very top to down here at the bottom of the income tax heap.

so get over yourselves about being high and mighty because in the past we all sought to pay as little tax to the HMRC as possible = FACT

I understand but IMO the nature of her job makes it difference. She was vastly overpaid because there is an archaic television tax that generates too much money for the BBC. this results in their staff being overpaid.

she just added insult to injury by not paying the more appropriate levels if income tax.

rog747
17th Feb 2018, 11:51
I understand but IMO the nature of her job makes it difference. She was vastly overpaid because there is an archaic television tax that generates too much money for the BBC. this results in their staff being overpaid.

she just added insult to injury by not paying the more appropriate levels if income tax.


exactly! - oh well I never --- the more and more you get paid the LESS you want to pay tax - its an age old chestnut !

never gonna go away - never

SOPS
17th Feb 2018, 13:52
A cool £163,233 according to the mail, more than the PM BBC presenter made to pay £420,000 in HMRC clampdown | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5396511/BBC-presenter-pay-420-000-HMRC-clampdown.html)

!63000 pounds for reading the regional news? Thats 289000 Australian dollars!!!Our favourite regional News reader here...and there is only one...and covers an area bigger than the whole of the UK...gets just over $130000 AUD.

How do I apply for this job...I assume it can't be hard?

M.Mouse
17th Feb 2018, 19:08
She was vastly overpaid because there is an archaic television tax that generates too much money for the BBC. this results in their staff being overpaid.

I have to disagree. If she worked for any of the commercial channels the stupid salary would be the same. At least with the BBC we don't have to suffer interminable adverts!

Rosevidney1
17th Feb 2018, 20:59
M. Mouse claims '. At least with the BBC we don't have to suffer interminable adverts'!

Quite right. Not from commercials anyway - but the Beeb is adding more time and space to trumpeting about its own 'upcoming' features, most of which will almost inevitably be dumbed down and dreary!

4mastacker
17th Feb 2018, 21:00
I have to disagree. If she worked for any of the commercial channels the stupid salary would be the same. At least with the BBC we don't have to suffer interminable adverts!

If she worked for any of the commercial channels, would the source of her income be the British tax-payer through the mandatory TV tax licence fee?

As for the adverts, there's plenty of advertising for books, films, campaigns, TV programmes, etc on the BBC during various chat shows, and the likes of BBC Breakfast, Marr, The One Show, News.

NRU74
17th Feb 2018, 21:11
I have to disagree. If she worked for any of the commercial channels the stupid salary would be the same. At least with the BBC we don't have to suffer interminable adverts!

Not so, really - she was ‘poached’ from ITV - presumably for a substantially higher salary.
Also she ‘shared’ most of the Look North slots with people such as Harry Gration so, presumably, she only had to bone up on c half of the stuff she had to read off the Autocue.

Regarding adverts, the Beeb seems to advertise their own programmes just about every hour during the couple of minutes prior to the hour coming up. Yes, I know they are called ‘Trails’ but they are virtually the same thing as adverts. Can’t see why they can’t charge, say, ITV, to advertise their programmes to keep -or remove- the licence fee.

parabellum
17th Feb 2018, 23:10
Regarding pilots claiming self employed via an agency, most of these individuals work overseas and are possibly covered by a different set of rules, many of them may have no UK tax liability, also the agencies themselves sometimes pay any tax due. As long as these agency pilots can maintain a 'Non-resident in UK for tax purposes' they may not have too much to worry about.

krismiler
18th Feb 2018, 01:21
How would a Ryanair pilot flying out of Stansted do that ?

UniFoxOs
18th Feb 2018, 08:15
Instead of paying myself below the NI threshold and taking it all as dividends

I paid just over the NI threshold in order to keep up my contributions and get the state pension. I took the rest as expenses.

Krystal n chips
18th Feb 2018, 08:23
Regarding adverts, the Beeb seems to advertise their own programmes just about every hour during the couple of minutes prior to the hour coming up. Yes, I know they are called ‘Trails’ but they are virtually the same thing as adverts. Can’t see why they can’t charge, say, ITV, to advertise their programmes to keep -or remove- the licence fee.

How can promoting a forthcoming programme or series, to be aired on the channel, be compared to advertising every product or service available to consumers for their purchase be classed as commercial advertising ?......not forgetting commercial channels also promote their forthcoming programmes.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Feb 2018, 08:41
I took the rest as expenses.
Expenses is fine if you actually incurred then, otherwise it's fraud.

cavortingcheetah
18th Feb 2018, 09:24
If you want to be treated as a non resident for tax purposes, the interpretation is not up to you. You should file a P85 with HMRC and continue to file a tax return, as normal, declaring yourself as non resident until such time as HMRC excuses you from having to file such a return.
Any other action is asking for trouble as is not consulting a professional tax adviser before embarking on a course of action.

As for the BBC self employment racket, it's been around for a long time and it's always constituted sailing very close to the HMRC wind. Those who embark on a course of action with the tax man that sounds too easy to be true are apt to reap the retrograde whirlwind. To anyone with any knowledge of taxation this angle has always been a scam that any reasonably intelligent person would question.
The blame lies firmly on the wallets of those who claimed self employment while working only for one employer. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the tax payer to ensure that his tax return is accurate and honest. That's what you sign it off for when your accountant presents it to you before filing it.
Had any one these people had the initiative to telephone their HMRC inspector for clarification on their situation, as I once did fifteen years ago, under exactly the same sort of circumstances, they would not be likely to have made the mistake.
This is tax evasion not tax avoidance, plain and simple.

parabellum
18th Feb 2018, 21:18
How would a Ryanair pilot flying out of Stansted do that ?


Last time I looked Stansted wasn't overseas.

wiggy
18th Feb 2018, 21:39
Last time I looked Stansted wasn't overseas.

As a general point depending on the contract/company it is entirely possible for airline crewmembers (even those flying short haul) to work out of a U.K. base and yet be resident elsewhere in the world for income tax purposes. I have no idea if that is possible with Ryanair basing and rostering.

SARF
18th Feb 2018, 22:41
but the thing is NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY until the very recent years of knee jerks of any of us now being seen as a tax avoider pariah wanted to pay tax at highest rates, or in fact any tax at all if one could get away with it -
AND that was all actively encouraged as we know by financial advisors all over

we all did it if we could

no one - and I challenge any of you out there that over the past 40 years of our careers that we did not seek ways to get out of paying as much tax as possible - and that goes from the very top to down here at the bottom of the income tax heap.

so get over yourselves about being high and mighty because in the past we all sought to pay as little tax to the HMRC as possible = FACT


I have paid all my tax due immediately. Er FACT. Call me stupid if you will. But I find these tax dodgers getting their comeuppance highly amusing

krismiler
19th Feb 2018, 00:03
A British Airways pilot flying long haul and doing three trips a month may choose to live in France and commute to work, possibly not even going outside Heathrow and only spending a few hours a month in the UK.

A contract pilot may work entirely outside the UK, flying as a passenger to and from his work location, possibly not even holding a UK license.

A pilot may live in the UK and fly for a Chinese airline on a reverse roster basis where his trips start and end in London but he spends more than six months away from the UK each year.

Things are a lot more complicated than they were thirty years ago with domicile, resident, ordinarily resident, non domiciled foreigner etc needing to be taken into account. Best thing to do is get it in writing from the Inland Revenue.

Dr Jekyll
19th Feb 2018, 09:22
I have paid all my tax due immediately. Er FACT. Call me stupid if you will. But I find these tax dodgers getting their comeuppance highly amusing

Only what was legally due? You mean you didn't volunteer to restructure you affairs to increase the tax liability? You wicked tax avoider.

uffington sb
19th Feb 2018, 10:36
163k for reading the news. I wonder how much her male colleagues were being paid?

axefurabz
19th Feb 2018, 16:13
Had any one these people had the initiative to telephone their HMRC inspector for clarification ...Best thing to do is get it in writing from the Inland Revenue. Best of luck chaps, that simply ain't going to happen in the 21st Century.

Gertrude the Wombat
19th Feb 2018, 17:12
Best of luck chaps, that simply ain't going to happen in the 21st Century.
Didn't happen last century either - they refused to answer hypotheticals.

Taxpayer: "if I did X, what would the tax treatment be?"

HMRC: "try it and see, we won't decide until after it's happened"


Unless the question you ask is "am I caught by IR35" in which case the answer is always and automatically, regardless of the facts, "yes".

4mastacker
19th Feb 2018, 18:58
163k for reading the autocue. I wonder how much her male colleagues were being paid?

Fixed that for you. ;)

Daysleeper
19th Feb 2018, 19:09
A British Airways pilot flying long haul and doing three trips a month may choose to live in France and commute to work, possibly not even going outside Heathrow and only spending a few hours a month in the UK.


So your tax is OK but stuff the FRMS and passenger safety?

ORAC
20th Feb 2018, 07:38
Tim Worstall has an article on this subject in today’s Times - and putting the gain and the blame on the BBC; but the best part is a lucid explanation in the comments column by a Mr Miller...

....“It was one of the fundamental features of the relevant legislation, introduced in 1999 and commonly known as IR35, that responsibility for any tax and NI due fell upon the personal service company not the business that engaged the worker. This is in direct contrast to the situation that arises when a business engages a sole trader (ie someone working as an unincorporated business). In the latter case if that worker was found to be a disguised employee of the engaging business then it is the engager that is responsible for any additional taxes. Hence businesses had a distinct incentive not to try and pass off workers as being self employed when in fact their terms of engagement were actually equivalent to employment.

By making the personal service company liable for all taxes in a disguised employment situation engaging companies like the BBC were incentivised to connive in these disguised employment arrangements. The BBC would have known that some of these individuals were likely to fail the IR35 employment status tests. A person engaged to read the news would never pass the self employment status checks. They are delivering news they have not researched themselves, at a time and place of the engager's choosing, using the engager's equipment and with no possibility of providing a substitute if the need arises. All strong pointers towards being an employee not self employed.

IR 35 was a fudge. It tried to deal with situations of disguised employment but HMRC bowed to pressure from big business not to make them responsible for ensuring the rules were applied correctly and placed all the onus for compliance on the individual worker. To make matters worse, even when the personal service company worker has been found to be a disguised employee and forced to cough up the additional tax and NI, the rules are such that they are rarely able to claim employment rights against the disguised employer. So businesses like the BBC, who connive at these arrangements, not only save the employer's NI but also save on potential liabilities like holiday and sick pay and redundancy costs.

The Government and HMRC were warned about the possible consequences of IR35 but have chosen not to address these weaknesses.”.....

wiggy
20th Feb 2018, 08:42
Daysleeper


<<A British Airways pilot flying long haul and doing three trips a month may choose to live in France and commute to work, possibly not even going outside Heathrow and only spending a few hours a month in the UK.>>
So your tax is OK but stuff the FRMS and passenger safety?

:=

Or of course rather than trying to paint everybody with the same brush you could consider that it is entirely possible for said pilot to travel into the UK the night before trip, and ensure they operate in compliance with EASA FTLS.
They might even need to make sure they comply with the more stringent audited requirements that the company ( perhaps BA might be one of those) places on personal travel into base before duty.......hence not stuffing the FRMS, and ensuring passengers safety.. ....

But I know any flying "commuting" is a sore point with some....anyhow now back to the luvvies, the BBC and who the heck replaced the Olympics coverage with "Lose Women":yuk:

axefurabz
20th Feb 2018, 23:13
ORAC, much of what you quote is simply assertion and opinion, no more.

However, do you remember that Director-General of the BBC who went by the name of Birt? He's now a Baron, I think. He used a personal services company. Do you think there's any chance of HMRC going after him now?

M.Mouse
21st Feb 2018, 01:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by krismiler View Post
A British Airways pilot flying long haul and doing three trips a month may choose to live in France and commute to work, possibly not even going outside Heathrow and only spending a few hours a month in the UK.

So your tax is OK but stuff the FRMS and passenger safety?

There are many BA pilots living as far afield as the USA, Canada, Brazil, Australia and new Zealand. France could be considered living locally!