Employing Domestic help

[johnfm]

Heavens, do you really think HMRC have the time or resources to even consider whether a 4 hour a day live-out au pair is an employee or self employed for tax purposes?

[mph1977]

johnfm said:

Heavens, do you really think HMRC have the time or resources to even consider whether a 4 hour a day live-out au pair is an employee or self employed for tax purposes?

they went through the COnstruction sector

then they looked at 'COntractors' especially where it appeared that people were resigning one day and starting the next day as Contractor and those workplaces never wnet off the radar

training and agnecy/ bank / 'self employed' health care is a current area of interest ... ( here's a big clue to the walter mitty 'emergency pratitioners' if you are driving their ambulance wearing their t-shirt and using the drugs they have illgally sourced you are probably an employee... and then you wonder why the NHS and SJA/BRC types are dismissive of many private services - notice how ERS going legit needed the backing of SRCL and that the PTS contracts that have gone outside the NHS have tended to go to new entrants from logistics / public transport backgrounds , and the critical care contracts use either ring fenced NHS resources or have Johnnie motors )

[BlackLabel]

Wow what a load of hassle just for a 4 hour a day cleaner/babysitter. It's no wonder agencies are so busy given the hoops you have to jump through just to arrange something so simple.

[Eric Mc]

johnfm said:

Heavens, do you really think HMRC have the time or resources to even consider whether a 4 hour a day live-out au pair is an employee or self employed for tax purposes?

You would be surprised who and what they target.

If they can win a victory over one small taxpayer - there may be hundreds of thousands of similar situations which will automatically have to comply with the judgement of the court.

Look at the huge effort they put into The Arctic Systems case. This was a relatively small entity (small ltd co) but the repercussions were enormous.

Luckily, HMRC lost this case - but only after 4 years of effort.

Sometimes there are massive principles at stake - which makes going after the small fry worthwhile - even desirable in many cases - because the small fry may not have the resources to defend themselves properly.

And look at the recent case they took against various cricket clubs ((some very small local clubs) over their part-time "self employed" ground staff.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 27th August 16:30

[ATG]

I do love the idea that knowing what you're taking about is synonymous with making things unnecessarily complicated. Obviously, when faced with complexity, the best strategy is to bury one's head in the sand and pretend things are simple.

[Eric Mc]

Exactly.

Many of my clients say to me "But my affairs are simple". I say "They perhaps SHOULD be, but unfortunately the tax regulations that cover your "simple" affairs are rather complex".

[DSLiverpool]

Use Molly Maid or similar, nothing else considered - have you thought about your liability insurance for having a contractor in your premises ??? Use Molly Maid

[rswift]

My profession (freelance musician) has just spent best part of 20 years or more fighting HMRC overvacfully freelance status, a lot of players on long running shows (musicals) were self employed/schedule D, but being deducted NI, whilst responsible for their own tax...despite supplying there own equipment (instruments) & being able to send substitute people at will, quite common in our business. The HMRC lost their case, and now elevate all quite happy....however the point is a) it took forever b) they are quite tenacious, even with "minority" occupations. In my humble opinion, take good professional advice, and don't try and fiddle the system for a few quid. Ps OP if it helps I'm in a similar situation !..,,fortune on childcare, although our hours/times/days are far from fixed.