Caring whether their adviser soon gets stuck between a rock and a hard place isn’t the job of a contractor.
But new legislative proposals may mean the upshot of this predicament for advisers is a reluctance for them to assist temporary workers with tax and IR35 advice.
This is the realistic prospect of a tabled piece of tax legislation that threatens to drive divisions between adviser (the professional who gives you guidance on IR35, for example) and client (you, the contractor).
In the legislation’s consultation (Strengthening Tax Avoidance Sanctions and Deterrents: A discussion document）–今天关闭—HMRC引入了“避免因素”的概念。文件中缺乏定义，使我们认为，HMRC的起草者要么害怕为这个相当不透明的术语提供法律说明，要么正在寻求尽可能扩大其适用范围。
‘Life-changing’
税务机关的政策负责人已经决定，避税的根本原因是提供“方案”并说服人们使用该方案的设计师，顾问和推销员大军。税收确定，如果方案失败，则应对该组施加罚款和罚款。协商的主要重点很难不同意。的确，如果在15年前建立了类似的东西，它将阻止 a lot of contractors from facing potentially life-changing tax demands today.
The problem around definitions in the HMRC document is that this overdue move indicates to us that ANY professional adviser who has ANY contact with contractors could 如果他们不知道自己的客户正在使用的东西被“击败”，将面临巨额和意外的罚款（最高为计划用户少付的税款的100％）。顾问当然是可以从“避税安排”中获得经济利益的人，但是他们会在使用该安排时或以后知道避税吗？在没有任何合理的回避定义的情况下，甚至可以进行无效交易。
Trusts, expenses and IR35
In the context of the contracting sector, any realistic attempt at defining avoidance would have to include the use of employment or similar trusts to channel payments, the deliberate over-claiming of expenses and probably the avoiding of IR35. We would go so far as to include pretty much ANY arrangement that promises a tax rate in the low teens percent.
Our reasoning for this is straightforward. It’s because HMRC has a view that contractors should be taxed as employees where they do similar jobs. That may be an incorrect and illogical view, but it is one they cling to and use often.
So why bother?
And given that avoidance is most often defined only in retrospect, how is an adviser going to be comfortable that a simple arrangement (say using a limited company）在5年的时间里不会被视为回避吗？那位顾问现在正面临两难境地–我提到的岩石和艰难的地方。反对使用有限责任公司，客户成为雇员，顾问失去生意。或者，建议该设备“安全”，并承担超出HMRC挑战范围的风险。这不是一个很好的困境。更糟糕的是;那位顾问现在要向客户收取多少费用—你，承包商—鉴于他的风险增加了？顾问的保险费会增加以弥补这一风险吗？此外，谁来支付更高的保费？并非您可以完全打赌的顾问。客户端;一定？如果没有，那么也许这些建议就不值得提供。
Compounding the situation is the incoming IR35 tests for those working in the public sector. We, along with most advisers, see these rules as applying to the private sector within a short period. If therefore you are offered a contract that is ‘IR35-proof’，是回避吗？质检人员会对此提供建议吗？起草律师，将其推向市场的发起人，向其推荐给客户的会计师事务所（或发起人）被抓？是的，我们所有人都这么认为。
April’s IR35 reforms (continued)
Could the rules spread further? What about the insurance company who promised to defend the IR35 status？根据IR35以外的价格为客户开具发票的总公司？提供“非员工”的招聘代理？谁在雇用相同角色的员工时故意雇用承包商？可以说所有人都将从承包商的地位中受益，如果该承包商（不经意地）从事避税，那么所有人都可能会受挫。
If contractors go for the vanilla option of a limited company to channel their expertise, is that avoidance? If the tests in the as yet unfinished HMRC tool on IR35 如果失败了，那么就一定有一定的机会可以避免。建议使用该公司的会计师应承担责任吗？也许不是，但前提是他们可以证明他们没有组织或制定基本合同。起草合同的委托人律师会小心翼翼地留在IR35之外吗？再一次也许不是—如果他们是雇员，但可能会抓住客户。
Brace for the backlash
该建议的长短之处在于，影响客户的税收做法，建立持久的关系并以合规的方式提供建议是受影响最大的税务做法，因为他们将继续为客户提供长期服务HMRC需要调查并确定某项安排不符合规定。那些希望迅速赚钱并在HMRC庞然大物被起诉之前（至少5年）消失的人将继续以承包商为食。毫无疑问，在这种情况下，HMRC将追逐单个承包商，因为“推动者”肯定包括承包商！
总体而言，缺乏合法或实际的定义将为HMRC提供其目标，即更少的回避案例。但这将以牺牲承包商选择权，建立自由和他们可以依靠的任何建议为代价。期待专业领域的强烈反对。
Source: http://www.contractoruk.com