Ryanair and Brookfield in the news again
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tax and social security are two different animals.
Tax is always an individual responsibility and governed by double tax treaties.
Social security is governed by EU Regulations and an individual responsibility only if you are self employed. If you are an employee, employer and employee share the burden.
As far as I understand, the issues here have to do with social security like public pension, health insurance, jobless insurance, etc.
Tax is always an individual responsibility and governed by double tax treaties.
Social security is governed by EU Regulations and an individual responsibility only if you are self employed. If you are an employee, employer and employee share the burden.
As far as I understand, the issues here have to do with social security like public pension, health insurance, jobless insurance, etc.
Moderator
I completely accept that we are all at the mercy of our employers' employment practices. There is, however, a common sense element to this. If you are 'forced' to start your own company or be 'self-employed', that is very frustrating as for most, if not all, airline pilots that is not an accurate reflection of your true employment status. That is one thing, but if as a result of those arrangements, the pilot concerned ends up paying virtually no tax, he/she should be very wary indeed and put some money aside for the day of reckoning. That day will surely come.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: High n Blighty
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm of the opinion that 1300 pilots on self employed status will not be a big enough fish for the HMRC to pursue Brookfield.
Those involved are still legally Paying their tax as defined by their employer.
The crew are scattered throughout Europe. All sounds a bit convoluted and vague.
Those involved are still legally Paying their tax as defined by their employer.
The crew are scattered throughout Europe. All sounds a bit convoluted and vague.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About £2.5-3 million per year then for hmrc, I don't think that's small change. Company want to get bigger and hmrc are being squeezed by the chancellor to find every penny.
Seems like a no brainier to me.
It would seem reasonable to serve notice on the contractor that they will be investigat under the rules stated earlier but go for Brookfield and ryanair for tax and national insurance evasion schemes.
I guess we will see.
Seems like a no brainier to me.
It would seem reasonable to serve notice on the contractor that they will be investigat under the rules stated earlier but go for Brookfield and ryanair for tax and national insurance evasion schemes.
I guess we will see.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Where the company needs me not where I want to be!
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Crew
HMRC are happy enough to go after single fish! I recon that means there happy enough to go after the likes of Brookfield and Ryanair
HMRC are happy enough to go after single fish! I recon that means there happy enough to go after the likes of Brookfield and Ryanair
I think you'll find that "paying no tax" was only really possible in the old one man band arrangements, and there are stories of people claiming daft things like driving across Europe to go out of base but the new setup has a fairly restrictive list of things you can claim, all of which are perfectly reasonable.
Most these days I would wager pay more tax than those who are employed S they are paying both sides of the NI/social insurance.
I agree if you are engaged on tax evasion on your own head be it, but that frankly just isn't the case (or even possible) for the majority these days.
Most these days I would wager pay more tax than those who are employed S they are paying both sides of the NI/social insurance.
I agree if you are engaged on tax evasion on your own head be it, but that frankly just isn't the case (or even possible) for the majority these days.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what about the cabin crew? Is it not the case that they are on similar 'self-employed' contracts. If so that will raise the numbers effected by a very large amount. Plus, if this construction of pilots & CA's continues, and with the vast new order for a/c, then the problem will encompass larger numbers not less. That would give HMRC and any other tax man good incentive to find the truth.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just FR , there are /were a fair number of crew in EZY on the PARC scheme who must be sweating .
If i were an individual i'd front ups myself now and do a deal , a lot less expensive than awaiting the axe to fall !
If i were an individual i'd front ups myself now and do a deal , a lot less expensive than awaiting the axe to fall !
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Hooverville
Age: 84
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what about type rating costs being used to off set tax through the pseudo company? Is this true? If so that's a pretty big claim back for HRMC in its self.
As said, HRMC are quite happy to go after individuals, and they don't let go....ever. They'll probably investigate a couple then issue demand to the rest, with the onus to provide evidence that self employed status is justified. Providing your services to more than one company is a pretty big part of it. Hopefully this'll be the end of this, frankly, shoddy practice
As said, HRMC are quite happy to go after individuals, and they don't let go....ever. They'll probably investigate a couple then issue demand to the rest, with the onus to provide evidence that self employed status is justified. Providing your services to more than one company is a pretty big part of it. Hopefully this'll be the end of this, frankly, shoddy practice
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what about the cabin crew? Is it not the case that they are on similar 'self-employed' contracts. If so that will raise the numbers effected by a very large amount. Plus, if this construction of pilots & CA's continues, and with the vast new order for a/c, then the problem will encompass larger numbers not less. That would give HMRC and any other tax man good incentive to find the truth.
The cabin crew get hired on a different scheme. They have direct employment with intermediary agencies. They have big issues too, such as being paid per scheduled block hour without guarantee for hours. The total income often end up below the minimum wage stipulated by states around Europe. Tax and social payments 'should' be sorted out by these agencies.
And what about type rating costs being used to off set tax through the pseudo company? Is this true?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are forgetting that the real issue here is not the evasion or avoidance of tax by the individual, it is the evasion of social security payments by an employer - and by proxy creating a completely unfair and unjust playing field in the aviation industry - with those disguising their employees as self employed able to manipulate their labour costs significantly lower than those who play by the rules and treat their employees in the right way. This urgently needs to be redressed.
The majority of people who are unfortunate enough to be in this awkward position as "contractor" are paying their taxes properly but are hugely financially handicapped by having to pay both the employer's and employee's portion of the National Insurance.
The majority of people who are unfortunate enough to be in this awkward position as "contractor" are paying their taxes properly but are hugely financially handicapped by having to pay both the employer's and employee's portion of the National Insurance.
Last edited by RexBanner; 18th Dec 2015 at 18:19.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, & most were not given the choice of employment model, having joined at a time when the job market was less rosy than this moment . . . . so, didn't choose to "set up their own company" etc etc .
If they wanted the job (and all said & done it was undoubtedly the best on offer given their experience level ) it was "take it or leave it", so, as you have said, peoples ire should not be directed at those bulldozed into this charade, but at those driving the bulldozer.
If they wanted the job (and all said & done it was undoubtedly the best on offer given their experience level ) it was "take it or leave it", so, as you have said, peoples ire should not be directed at those bulldozed into this charade, but at those driving the bulldozer.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the reality is they jumped at a contractor position as it got them flying. Worry about the technicalities later. I turned down ryanair because they wouldn't confirm I would be on a ryanair contract. As it happens, I would have but ashtak who was the recruitment contact was as much use as gauze condom so I took another job instead.
Don't take the crap contracts then things improve but he'll nobody ever listens.
Patience seems to be a lost art!
Don't take the crap contracts then things improve but he'll nobody ever listens.
Patience seems to be a lost art!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch closely the investigation going on about 'Sports Direct' in UK and its treatment of agency workers. UK MP's are strongly opposed to the practices of that company and its work ethics. Today, on the BBC radio, the chairman of the Institute of Directors was scathing of the abuse caused by Sp Direct on its workers. One item in particular was quoted as abhorrent and "unacceptable": people carrying out duties at the behest of the employer in their own time for no pay. For those in certain LoCo's does that sound familiar?
If so-called self-employed pilots do not feel the time is now right to connect to this government led movement against unacceptable work practices, and act, then they only have themselves to blame and there should be no more whinging.
If so-called self-employed pilots do not feel the time is now right to connect to this government led movement against unacceptable work practices, and act, then they only have themselves to blame and there should be no more whinging.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That case will be an expensive lesson for the german self employed Ryanair pilots. They will have to pay the social security contribution for a couple of years and then try to get somehow something back from Brookfield.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A different question, as a contractor in an accident situation, where does the liability fall? The lawyers would come knocking on your door after ryanair told them the flight operation on that flight was by xxx Irish contract services who hold accountability. Hell, they might even sue you!
This would bother me much more than hmrc
This would bother me much more than hmrc
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Hooverville
Age: 84
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Witnessed plenty of self-satisfied "Ryan's" looking down their noses at us poor inferior Turbo-propers, happy and smug at off-setting and minimising their tax bills down compared to us legit' PAYE. I didn't go for MOLs merry ship, couldn't stand the thought of working for the smug pikey. Not all at Ryan are like this, but there's plenty that are. Oh well just extend the parental mortgage a little bit more, HRMC don't mind where the Bucks come from, and for sure MOLs fortune ain't gonna get touched...
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Hooverville
Age: 84
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree....The ROI really doesn't give a rats, not after the Celtic Tiger coughed up its terminal coil, and any tax income is better than none. Social obligations are another matter and maybe with success in this, the gates open towards tax. I would however be getting stressed if I was Ryan, knowing how the tax man gets his kicks. Get one "small un" and you have a good chance of getting the rest, all for minimum cost, especially balanced against the massive outlay required to pursue the corporate powerful entity. The whole Ryanair operation is ruthless in every aspect of it's business and as a pilot you have to accept that with the ambassadorial role that the postion bestows upon, you must also accept that compassion for any misfortune will be as limited as MOL's arbitration skills....
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 think the discussion has drifted from the original point. The article was about the German tax authorities & HMRC investigating BRK and its structure for renting out pilots. The claim is that they were not self-employed as contested by BRK, but employees. Thus it would seem the investigation start point is at BRK not the individual pilot. I would expect that investigation to be followed and when it is concluded then there might be some follow up towards individuals. It will be much easier to focus on one known entity than chase numerous needles in many haystacks. The complaint is against the agency not its clients.