:D

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

:8Now that is libel....

:ok:

touché

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:

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!

No, I think that is a question.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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