Reply With QuoteWhat's the importance of the article that it was deemed that it deserves it's own thread when there are already several others?Originally Posted by pipster
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
IPSE - is the organistion that represents. They have been consulted by Govt on IR35, won and lost IR35 cases against HMRC and are recognised professional body.
They have just published an article on Gary Lineker hi sIR35 status, social media restraints clients can put on their contractors / employees etc - the article is https://www.ipse.co.uk/ipse-news/ips...-it-means.html
What's the importance of the article that it was deemed that it deserves it's own thread when there are already several others?
Because the other lineker thread was 20+ pages and about the tweet etc. This was specifically about his upcoming IR35 court case appeal and how or why the recent events may affect the case.
"As IPSE members will know only too well, just because HMRC say Lineker should be taxed as an employee, doesnt make him an employee. Even if he loses his IR35 battle, it wont automatically change his employment status. So Lineker is now, and will likely continue to be, a freelancer which could well have material effect on how much control the BBC can exert over what he says on social media."
That's the conclusion of the article.
Unless I missed it, nothing in the article gives an opinion on how "recent events may affect the case".
The article only says that social media policies can affect employees & freelancers alike. It even says that it can be ambiguous.
You appear to be reaching a tad
Thanks for that - you appear to be a rather argumentative chap - so i'll leave it there
Very perceptive. I'm very argumentative.
I haven't been argumentative in this thread though.
I've just pointed out that the article that you have posted doesn't contain any information regarding the reason that you gave for posting it.
Someone with your convictions on the topic of Gary Lineker and his tax issues would surely want to prove me wrong.
I guess not
"I haven't been argumentative in this thread though" - I looked at your previous posts. I'm always up for a helpful debate, if you want to puff your semantic chest out and flex those keyboard muscles etc - then Im not the type of person for you. I wish you a pleasant evening.
I have commented how IR35 works from a practical point of view and how it operates on another thread
For me Lineker hasn't done anything wrong in terms of operating as a free lancer .He and his accountant are probably squeaky clean on how he operates especially when it comes to tax . Accountants are very professional and couldn't cook the books as some people are led to believe . There is no way you can frig the system in paying less tax as all money that goes into and out of a business account is clearly marked out in an end financial statement prepared by your accountant . Every penny is accounted for over a 12 month period
It looks like HMRC has decided in his case that he was employed by the BBC or in there language a 'disguised employee '
From the outside looking in I agree with HMRC . He has offered his services for the BBC and BT sports for a long time so in my eyes he should be classed as an employee
Will be interesting how his appeal goes
Ive had a few issues with ir35, back when it was just starting out , there has been some interesting cases over the years. The right of substitution being used, mutuality of obligation (being told what to do by your 'client' ) and year by year - it has become harder to class yourself as out of it. HMRC latest nail in the coffin was when they said responsibility and liability of deciding was down to the end client - in this case BBC / BT etc. But oif HMRC then subsequently decided different all parties especially the end client ie the bbc would be liable.
So must companies just rolled over. From what I can see - I also agree with the HMRC - he is employed by the bbc. Either way - I think - whether he wins the appeal or not - this case will set a precedent.
In my opinion, I think he will be classed as employed, made to pay the back tax - and the bbc social media policy (whatever they decide it to be) will apply to him
It's interesting that you started a thread by posting an article that you think backs up your opinion, only to then find out that you've misread it (or not read it at all) because it actually suggests that the BBC social media policy would already apply to freelancers (even though it's "ambiguous") and "Lineker is now, and will likely continue to be, a freelancer" was the verdict of the article that you were bigging up originally.
Then, without skipping a beat and without any fear of shame or humility, you decided that he must be guilty anyway - so I guess that we can discount the OP entirely as the article didn't actually say what you wanted it to say (i.e. that they think that Lineker is employed by the BBC)?
This feels like a familiar trait. May I ask, are you TWGL in disguise?
He ain’t me mate I don’t know WTF he’s talking about
I do agree with his comments about you though , he’s spot on with that.
Why do you bother coming on here if all you do is argue and belittle posters ?
In addition I’ve told you countless times if you use a phone a lot then you can mistype things or get distracted if your doing other things at the same time.
1. Posting links to articles that don't back up your opinion is something you've done several times. It's a funny little coincidence
2. I agree with him too. I said as much in my second post.
3. See 2. Because I'm very argumentative.
4. I'm not sure what relevance that last paragraph has to anything that I have said in this thread? The lady doth protest too much, perhaps?
Its like going around in circles at times with you honestly, take a break.1. Posting links to articles that don't back up your opinion is something you've done several times. It's a funny little coincidence
2. I agree with him too. I said as much in my second post.
3. See 2. Because I'm very argumentative.
4. I'm not sure what relevance that last paragraph has to anything that I have said in this thread? The lady doth protest too much, perhaps?
No thanks.
Agree as you can get lost in all the posts you get as replies if you defer from the mainstream view . I didn't know so yes it was worth a standalone post,dont understand the opposition to it ??
There's no opposition to it.
The article is supportive of Gary Lineker's tax situation as a freelancer.
Are you sure that you don't want to oppose it?
https://www.theguardian.com/football...r-49m-tax-bill
"Gary Lineker has won his battle with HMRC over a 4.9m tax bill."
I havent read the court transcript yet (but as predicted) i suspect his 'show down' with the beeb over his right to do what he did, will have been mentioned in the case. Put it this - his lawyers would be mad not to include such high profile and public evidence.
This may set precedence now as what can be defined as being employed by your own personal services company and what constitutes disguised employment.
So, the reason his Tweeted about immigration ( which I agree with) was to prove to the HMRC that he was freelance. The tweet was all manufactured then IMHO and saved him 4.9m.
I think you are making a supposition from a preposition .... what I was eluding to was that whether his defence used the tweet as evidence that he was not under the control of the bbc re his behaviour unlike other employees.
From memory there used to be 6 tests that would be applied to determine ir35 status. The right of substitution, mutuality of obligation, direction, whether you used your own equipment or the end clients' and a load others that I cant remember off the top of my head.
Are they allowed to introduce new evidence in an appeal of this nature?
Particularly as it is about a previous financial year.
It would be even more odd to try and introduce Lineker's tweet as evidence when it was made a couple of weeks after court arguments had concluded, but Pip's an expert so him and his echo TWGL1 may have a different opinion!
Apparently you can - as long as both sides agree - and it's relevant. I havent followed the court proceedings, but IPSE have - and as yet they havent written an article on it yet. So it will be interesting (to some) to see what in this case sets it apart from other cases which the HMRC have won.
I see your echo had been banned
