Brookfield FO contract
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every new contractor with BRK is given a contract that states that in order to receive their first payment BRK must have conformation from one of the three accountants that the contractor has set himself up with them in the required fashion.
No confirmation letter, no payment on the 12th of the month.
No confirmation letter, no payment on the 12th of the month.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seychelles
Age: 39
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've been told, what you're saying is not in the contract at all, but instead in the FAQ's. I can't see how they can put that in the contract, but I can see how they can easily put it in the FAQ's. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but hey.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: monaco
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like the new recruits, both DEC Captains & First Officers, are being offered a new BRK contract that pays about 10% less than the "old" one and requires them to use the services of the above mentioned tax advisors otherwise they can leave.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaman
I'm not sure how it all works, rubbish at this legal stuff to be honest! But as far as I know if your a Brookfield contractor based anywhere in Europe you still pay Irish taxes under your own Irish Ltd company!
Regards,
I'm not sure how it all works, rubbish at this legal stuff to be honest! But as far as I know if your a Brookfield contractor based anywhere in Europe you still pay Irish taxes under your own Irish Ltd company!
Regards,
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why dont your beloved BALPA take it up then ?
1. Incapable of reading facts and retaining them
2. Incredibly stupid and/or extremely immature
3. A troll
or a combination of all 3.
b) If the posters are BALPA members they would do well to ask for that advice, if not, there are a number of bodies, including CAB and legal firms who could advise. As it is not a complex question it should be answered at next to no expense.
If you remove "your beloved" from your sarcastic question it is actually a highly constructive comment.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
al446
Ok fair point, I'll take that on board.
however, i have been following the exchanges regarding the Ryanair BALPA recognition, and fair enough i am prepared to take into account your comment, but you have to be fair and consider that anyone who doesn't submit to your views on BALPA / unionisation or has been sold down the river in the past by BALPA is not a Ryanair management stooge.
I appreciate your considerations toward union representation and the potential advances in T&C's for flight crews, however, there seems to have been a lack of understanding on your part why there exists some dissatisfaction with BALPA.
BRK contracts haven't just popped out the woodwork in the past few days. BALPA should have stepped up to the plate at the first instance, have they stepped up to the plate on the continual evolution of them?
This then reverts back to the thread an subject matter involving FR and BRK contracts in Ryanair.
As you pointed out you are neither in Ryanair, nor flight crew, but now perhaps you can understand some of the dissatisfaction that exists toward BALPA, without being a *union buster* or *Ryanair management stooge*
BALPA's campaign of "Respect and Dignity" for Ryanair pilots doesnt seem to include those on BRK contracts that could be subjected to terms and conditions that could possibly circumvent EU employment law.
Ok fair point, I'll take that on board.
however, i have been following the exchanges regarding the Ryanair BALPA recognition, and fair enough i am prepared to take into account your comment, but you have to be fair and consider that anyone who doesn't submit to your views on BALPA / unionisation or has been sold down the river in the past by BALPA is not a Ryanair management stooge.
I appreciate your considerations toward union representation and the potential advances in T&C's for flight crews, however, there seems to have been a lack of understanding on your part why there exists some dissatisfaction with BALPA.
BRK contracts haven't just popped out the woodwork in the past few days. BALPA should have stepped up to the plate at the first instance, have they stepped up to the plate on the continual evolution of them?
This then reverts back to the thread an subject matter involving FR and BRK contracts in Ryanair.
As you pointed out you are neither in Ryanair, nor flight crew, but now perhaps you can understand some of the dissatisfaction that exists toward BALPA, without being a *union buster* or *Ryanair management stooge*
BALPA's campaign of "Respect and Dignity" for Ryanair pilots doesnt seem to include those on BRK contracts that could be subjected to terms and conditions that could possibly circumvent EU employment law.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Cross Border and Double Taxation
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce Wayne
Thank you for your measured reply, I appreciate it.
I don't really want to get back to the RYR/BALPA thing on here but dont think it is TOO much thread drift to reply.
The issues over BALPA per se I cannot comment on, can only generalise. My views re BALPA and Unite have been expounded to some extent, I think better representation would be gained if Unite was to subsume BALPA, it would stop it being viewed as a BA club to start with.
Re the use of contractors, as I posted, almost every sector of the UK economy has been using contractors/agency for years, the majority of the BAe Systems fitters at Woodford were agency and a private aviation company looked after the Canberras at St Mawgan when I was in the RAF, that was as far back as '71. Under present UK TU legislation no union can prevent any company using agency especially a company that does not recognise the union. BA may have been prevented using them because BALPA has the strength there to bring the company to its knees if it tries to replace a vacant post with agency. I am NOT stating that that has been the case or not.
The problem with conversations such as this is that people assume unions have powers that they no longer hold. Which, strangely enough, is usually the reason they have a negative view of unions en total.
If you would do me the great favour of reviewing my posts you will see that I do not call people union busters or Ryanair management stooges unless they have appeared to me to be deliberately distorting things or spreading misinformation. In general I try to conduct myself in a polite and dignified manner and expect the same from others.
I do not envy the position of the BRK pilots, they are victims of circumstance which MOL etc will exploit but, as stated earlier, this only mirrors what has been happening within the rest of UK since early '90s.
To get back on thread, it appears to me that BRK require everyone to be their own Ltd co, I think it is illegal for a contract to contain a requirement for the contracting co (pilot) to use the services of specified accountants. They may require your accountant to be member of a relevant professional body but I think that is as narrow as they can get. Take advice.
I don't really want to get back to the RYR/BALPA thing on here but dont think it is TOO much thread drift to reply.
The issues over BALPA per se I cannot comment on, can only generalise. My views re BALPA and Unite have been expounded to some extent, I think better representation would be gained if Unite was to subsume BALPA, it would stop it being viewed as a BA club to start with.
Re the use of contractors, as I posted, almost every sector of the UK economy has been using contractors/agency for years, the majority of the BAe Systems fitters at Woodford were agency and a private aviation company looked after the Canberras at St Mawgan when I was in the RAF, that was as far back as '71. Under present UK TU legislation no union can prevent any company using agency especially a company that does not recognise the union. BA may have been prevented using them because BALPA has the strength there to bring the company to its knees if it tries to replace a vacant post with agency. I am NOT stating that that has been the case or not.
The problem with conversations such as this is that people assume unions have powers that they no longer hold. Which, strangely enough, is usually the reason they have a negative view of unions en total.
If you would do me the great favour of reviewing my posts you will see that I do not call people union busters or Ryanair management stooges unless they have appeared to me to be deliberately distorting things or spreading misinformation. In general I try to conduct myself in a polite and dignified manner and expect the same from others.
I do not envy the position of the BRK pilots, they are victims of circumstance which MOL etc will exploit but, as stated earlier, this only mirrors what has been happening within the rest of UK since early '90s.
To get back on thread, it appears to me that BRK require everyone to be their own Ltd co, I think it is illegal for a contract to contain a requirement for the contracting co (pilot) to use the services of specified accountants. They may require your accountant to be member of a relevant professional body but I think that is as narrow as they can get. Take advice.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
al446
Thank you for your measured reply also.
I have reviewed your posts, previously, as I mentioned I have been following the thread regarding the BALPA recognition in Ryanair closely.
Indeed contracting has it's place for sure and I have myself contracted for many years. However, it may be worth a quick review of this
Briefly:
Other factors which can give a clue as to a worker's employment status include if the worker:
BRK contracts no not permit pilots to work for another operation for the duration of the contract (5 years), however, certain points either for and against status sail very close to the wind. True, they may not be applicable in other industries, but for aviation, they are and as such flight deck positions are not like for like comparable with other industries.
Pilots have worked under contract basis for years, however, they are short term contracts, and that is fine and workable. however when a 'contractor' works exclusively for one client, operating their equipment on a 5 year contract that becomes a different situation.
Now if it were an option to be either FR or BRK contracted and the contract did not make stipulations on who / what accountancy firms were dictated that would be another issue.
I'm not going to get into a dissertation on the ins and outs of it, or do the legal leg work on this issue, that is not in my remit here, but things like JAR-OPS are also a point of consideration and interpretation with what does and doesn't constitute a contractor.
MOL is sharp, you have to hand it to him. The situation in effect opens a Pandora's box.
Thank you for your measured reply also.
I have reviewed your posts, previously, as I mentioned I have been following the thread regarding the BALPA recognition in Ryanair closely.
Indeed contracting has it's place for sure and I have myself contracted for many years. However, it may be worth a quick review of this
Briefly:
Other factors which can give a clue as to a worker's employment status include if the worker:
- works set hours, or a given number of hours a week/month;
- is paid by the hour/week/month;
- works at the employer's premises or at places determined by the employer;
- is not allowed to work for others (especially competitors); and
- could be dismissed.
- risks his own money in the business - bearing the risk of loss as well as taking the benefit of the profits;
- has the final say in how his business is run;
- provides his own equipment;
- hires others on his own terms to do the work and pays them himself; and
- is free to work for others.
BRK contracts no not permit pilots to work for another operation for the duration of the contract (5 years), however, certain points either for and against status sail very close to the wind. True, they may not be applicable in other industries, but for aviation, they are and as such flight deck positions are not like for like comparable with other industries.
Pilots have worked under contract basis for years, however, they are short term contracts, and that is fine and workable. however when a 'contractor' works exclusively for one client, operating their equipment on a 5 year contract that becomes a different situation.
Now if it were an option to be either FR or BRK contracted and the contract did not make stipulations on who / what accountancy firms were dictated that would be another issue.
I'm not going to get into a dissertation on the ins and outs of it, or do the legal leg work on this issue, that is not in my remit here, but things like JAR-OPS are also a point of consideration and interpretation with what does and doesn't constitute a contractor.
MOL is sharp, you have to hand it to him. The situation in effect opens a Pandora's box.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaman,
If the pilot is an employee of Ryanair he will receive a P60 from them with the tax deducted in Ireland. He then needs to send that P60 to the Italian authorities where they will tell him how much he owes and also the the Irish authorities where they will send all the tax bakc to him.
If he is a contractor under the BRK technically he has a contract for services with a UK company and therefore he has UK sourced income and woudl need to file a return in the UK and then in Itlay.
Under the BRK recomended way then the employment is as per the first way above. Instead of Ryanair the employer will be the company one of BRK's accountants have set up.
It therefore leads on that Her Majesty's Inland Revenue are wasting their time "going after" the brookfield pilots. If they do then BRK up sticks and either move to Ireland or half way to the Isle of Man. Then the IR have nothing to do with them.
If you pay for advice as my guy did you will be told that every piece of EU taxation, employment and company legislation says that what BRK is doing is wrong. However the cold simple fact is that BRK are in a position to bully any one individual pilot and the Unions are not going to help.
If the pilot is an employee of Ryanair he will receive a P60 from them with the tax deducted in Ireland. He then needs to send that P60 to the Italian authorities where they will tell him how much he owes and also the the Irish authorities where they will send all the tax bakc to him.
If he is a contractor under the BRK technically he has a contract for services with a UK company and therefore he has UK sourced income and woudl need to file a return in the UK and then in Itlay.
Under the BRK recomended way then the employment is as per the first way above. Instead of Ryanair the employer will be the company one of BRK's accountants have set up.
It therefore leads on that Her Majesty's Inland Revenue are wasting their time "going after" the brookfield pilots. If they do then BRK up sticks and either move to Ireland or half way to the Isle of Man. Then the IR have nothing to do with them.
If you pay for advice as my guy did you will be told that every piece of EU taxation, employment and company legislation says that what BRK is doing is wrong. However the cold simple fact is that BRK are in a position to bully any one individual pilot and the Unions are not going to help.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester
Age: 70
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce Wayne
Thankfully we can carry out this exchange now with a modicum of decorum.
All the points you make are broadly correct, HMRC determined the majority of them over the years in response to the slight of hand that the contracting businesses employed. I worked for some time in construction (electrical) and saw and heard of most of the dodges. However, there is a world of difference between the different areas of law ie taxation, employment and industrial relations. I can understand the confusion of some and I was trying to make that point on the other thread.
In taxation, if HMRC can prove that you are not a GENERAL contracting company ie you are the sole worker and/or supply your services to one company then they apply narrower rules.
In IR, you are not considered part of the bargaining unit, that is for direct employees only. I am always up for correction here but believe it to be the case.
Where a union may be useful is in employment law. Under certain circumstances you may be able to claim unfair dismissal. The one I can think of is guys coming in on newer less well paid contract supplanting guys on older contracts. If it can be proven that the job you did previously still exists and has now been filled by a new cheaper guy, generally, you have a claim via an industrial tribunal. That is the best way to screw RYR if you so wish. IMHO.
I agree that MOL is sharp, so much so he may cut himself in his sleep.
All the points you make are broadly correct, HMRC determined the majority of them over the years in response to the slight of hand that the contracting businesses employed. I worked for some time in construction (electrical) and saw and heard of most of the dodges. However, there is a world of difference between the different areas of law ie taxation, employment and industrial relations. I can understand the confusion of some and I was trying to make that point on the other thread.
In taxation, if HMRC can prove that you are not a GENERAL contracting company ie you are the sole worker and/or supply your services to one company then they apply narrower rules.
In IR, you are not considered part of the bargaining unit, that is for direct employees only. I am always up for correction here but believe it to be the case.
Where a union may be useful is in employment law. Under certain circumstances you may be able to claim unfair dismissal. The one I can think of is guys coming in on newer less well paid contract supplanting guys on older contracts. If it can be proven that the job you did previously still exists and has now been filled by a new cheaper guy, generally, you have a claim via an industrial tribunal. That is the best way to screw RYR if you so wish. IMHO.
I agree that MOL is sharp, so much so he may cut himself in his sleep.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For any guys who are not from wither the UK or Ireland and on the Brookfield contract you should be able to avail of tax relief from foreign earnings. It will depend on where you are based etc. etc. There are also overnight allowances and other tax breaks that the Irish tax code allows for.
Its not as straight forward for the UK based guys but my accountant here in the UK is dealing with an adviser in Dublin who is giving him the information so that the FO mate of mine will get sorted. he has taken the attitude that f he spends a grand on professional fees now it will be worth it. His big worry of course is that he wil do all of this and BRK will still make him use one of their three advisers.
There are good tax planning measures around and BRK are preventing the contractors from availing of them. Its as though they are looking to make life as difficult as possible for themselves by ensuring the pilots are as disgruntled as possible.
Its not as straight forward for the UK based guys but my accountant here in the UK is dealing with an adviser in Dublin who is giving him the information so that the FO mate of mine will get sorted. he has taken the attitude that f he spends a grand on professional fees now it will be worth it. His big worry of course is that he wil do all of this and BRK will still make him use one of their three advisers.
There are good tax planning measures around and BRK are preventing the contractors from availing of them. Its as though they are looking to make life as difficult as possible for themselves by ensuring the pilots are as disgruntled as possible.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused. As I understand it BRK is a UK registered company. Pilots, of whatever ltd company status they are, are contracted to provide servies to BRK, who then farm gthem out to RYR. The contract is with BRK. What has Irish tax laws got to do with anything, and by association what do Irish accountants have to do with the whole schimozzle?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair are an Irish comapny. The pilots fly for ryanair. All of the pilots are effectively under the control and direction of Ryanair, they are provided with the tools, told where to go, how to do their job etc. etc.
For all intense purposes the contractors are employees. Therefore if the irish tax office had the appitite for it they would force Ryaniar to make all of the contractor pilots employees. However, they know that it would be a long and protected effort to make it happen and in these ecomonic times it is hard for the irish tax office to justify the expense of a high court action against Ryanair to force them to take on the pilots where, even if they were successful, ryanair could just up sticks and move to another country and emply contractors anyway.
Therefore when the Irish tax office knocked on MOL's door he told them the contractors were nothing to do with him and that they woud have to talk to brookfield. To cut a long story short the irish tax boys told BRK that they would allow the situation to continue provided they clean up the tax affairs of the pilots.
This is how it became an Irish tax issue even though the pilots' contract is with a UK company. The true relationship is between the pilot and Ryaniar. BRK is just a conduit.
Ancedotally from a few different sources I have been able to establish that afer the pressure came on BRK went to meet the Irish tax office. DD brought along one of the three accountants from the list. From the tax office itself the word is that they knew DD hadn't got a clue about tax, and in fairness why would he, but that he had "completely bought in" to the multi director company model that Mcnamara had sold him. Basically he fell for the line of bull**** that he was fed by the accountant and his greedy little eyes lit up at the prospect of replacing his lost income from the cut in rates imposed by Ryanair on him with commission from the accountants.
There is no way in hell that his scheme is approved by the Irish tax office. My accountant has told me that for the Irish or UK tax offices to "approve" the multi ditectro company model is for them to approve Ryanair and Brookfield employing contractor and also to "approve" the terms and conditions of that employment. To do so would prevent them from ever taking a case agaisnt either company to force them to make the contractors full time employees or else to make them change the terms and condition under which the contractors are employed. It is also in breach of EU employment laws so they can't approve it.
So if DD tells you that the multi director model is the only one approved by the Tax office he is talking b@ll@x and you should ask him to show you proof. If he does I will eat my mothers hat.
Our accountant here in the UK actually called the Irish Tax office and they told him that any method that ensured the tax compliance of the contractor was "acceptable" to them.
Acceptable and approved are very different. A multi director company and a one man comapny are both acceptable. neither are approved and neither will ever be approved.
It is worth too much to BRK to allow the pilots their legal entitlement of appointing the accountant of their choice. If there are 500 active contractors earning an average of £70k per annum, if BRK were getting even as little of 1% of the 3% fee being charged to each pilot by the "approved" accountants then it is extra income of £350,000 for doing nothing.
I am sure there are other accountants in both ireland and the UK who would happily pay DD for the pleasure of providing tax advice to his contractors. If they can provide a better service to the contractors then I think the pilot should be allowed to use them.
My friend and now a few of his colleagues still hasn't gone with Mcnamara and is doing all they can to find some way of avoiding it and paying the extra taxes.
I suppose for DD to admit he was taken in by the advisers who managed to persuade him that their way was the only way and that they would make it worth his while to give them a virtual momopoly. At the end of the day as has been mentioned on this post before if Mcnamara et al make a mistake it will not be their problem it will be Brookfield and Declan Dooney's problem. For the sake of a few pieces of silver he has set himself up for a massive potential loss.
He is not an accountant or a tax adviser and he has tried to run with a few guys who are a little bit sharper than him when it came ot tax and they have done him up like the proverbial kipper. Not only for the pilots sake but for his own he should stop the nonsense now and just allow the pilots to make whatever tax planning provisons that they want.
For all intense purposes the contractors are employees. Therefore if the irish tax office had the appitite for it they would force Ryaniar to make all of the contractor pilots employees. However, they know that it would be a long and protected effort to make it happen and in these ecomonic times it is hard for the irish tax office to justify the expense of a high court action against Ryanair to force them to take on the pilots where, even if they were successful, ryanair could just up sticks and move to another country and emply contractors anyway.
Therefore when the Irish tax office knocked on MOL's door he told them the contractors were nothing to do with him and that they woud have to talk to brookfield. To cut a long story short the irish tax boys told BRK that they would allow the situation to continue provided they clean up the tax affairs of the pilots.
This is how it became an Irish tax issue even though the pilots' contract is with a UK company. The true relationship is between the pilot and Ryaniar. BRK is just a conduit.
Ancedotally from a few different sources I have been able to establish that afer the pressure came on BRK went to meet the Irish tax office. DD brought along one of the three accountants from the list. From the tax office itself the word is that they knew DD hadn't got a clue about tax, and in fairness why would he, but that he had "completely bought in" to the multi director company model that Mcnamara had sold him. Basically he fell for the line of bull**** that he was fed by the accountant and his greedy little eyes lit up at the prospect of replacing his lost income from the cut in rates imposed by Ryanair on him with commission from the accountants.
There is no way in hell that his scheme is approved by the Irish tax office. My accountant has told me that for the Irish or UK tax offices to "approve" the multi ditectro company model is for them to approve Ryanair and Brookfield employing contractor and also to "approve" the terms and conditions of that employment. To do so would prevent them from ever taking a case agaisnt either company to force them to make the contractors full time employees or else to make them change the terms and condition under which the contractors are employed. It is also in breach of EU employment laws so they can't approve it.
So if DD tells you that the multi director model is the only one approved by the Tax office he is talking b@ll@x and you should ask him to show you proof. If he does I will eat my mothers hat.
Our accountant here in the UK actually called the Irish Tax office and they told him that any method that ensured the tax compliance of the contractor was "acceptable" to them.
Acceptable and approved are very different. A multi director company and a one man comapny are both acceptable. neither are approved and neither will ever be approved.
It is worth too much to BRK to allow the pilots their legal entitlement of appointing the accountant of their choice. If there are 500 active contractors earning an average of £70k per annum, if BRK were getting even as little of 1% of the 3% fee being charged to each pilot by the "approved" accountants then it is extra income of £350,000 for doing nothing.
I am sure there are other accountants in both ireland and the UK who would happily pay DD for the pleasure of providing tax advice to his contractors. If they can provide a better service to the contractors then I think the pilot should be allowed to use them.
My friend and now a few of his colleagues still hasn't gone with Mcnamara and is doing all they can to find some way of avoiding it and paying the extra taxes.
I suppose for DD to admit he was taken in by the advisers who managed to persuade him that their way was the only way and that they would make it worth his while to give them a virtual momopoly. At the end of the day as has been mentioned on this post before if Mcnamara et al make a mistake it will not be their problem it will be Brookfield and Declan Dooney's problem. For the sake of a few pieces of silver he has set himself up for a massive potential loss.
He is not an accountant or a tax adviser and he has tried to run with a few guys who are a little bit sharper than him when it came ot tax and they have done him up like the proverbial kipper. Not only for the pilots sake but for his own he should stop the nonsense now and just allow the pilots to make whatever tax planning provisons that they want.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: varies..a lot
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little add on to all this.
I was talking to some friends in BRK who started over a year ago and who set themselves up with their own tax advisor/accountant. After a meeting with BRK who told them they were required to set up this "company", most at that meeting told BRK that they were already set up, either as self employed or as a limited company and had no reason to change....after further conversations it seems that BRK/FR are ok to leave those already established to get on with their own affairs and that this company scheme with FR approved accountants will apply to NEW BRK contractors...too many rules, too many different contracts terms and conditions, I do not for the life of me understand how FR can keep up with all this!!!!!!
I was talking to some friends in BRK who started over a year ago and who set themselves up with their own tax advisor/accountant. After a meeting with BRK who told them they were required to set up this "company", most at that meeting told BRK that they were already set up, either as self employed or as a limited company and had no reason to change....after further conversations it seems that BRK/FR are ok to leave those already established to get on with their own affairs and that this company scheme with FR approved accountants will apply to NEW BRK contractors...too many rules, too many different contracts terms and conditions, I do not for the life of me understand how FR can keep up with all this!!!!!!