IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]know that many so called SE archaeologists are nothing of the sort and that this is a major scam being perpetrated that is defrauding the tax authority and which a law abiding body such as the IfA cannot condone

[/SIZE]
So called SE ?either they are or they are not.

Kevin at what point is the tax fraud? The SEs pay tax, the definition is wholly about paying tax. What is your problem. Whats going on here is that you all want to play workers hero when the workers have got up and thrown off the shackles of employment patronage from a bunch of sleazy unit directors and curators and ify.

[Marcus Brody]

So called SE –either they are or they are not.

I think Kevin's point may be relating to the companies that designate the people on site as 'self-employed' to avoid having to deal with their tax and national insurance issues - basically, even though these people are effectively treated as staff of the company, it tries to get around any tax and employment responsibilities by saying to them 'you're self employed, you need to deal with all that stuff yourself'. This is an entirely different situation from true self-employed status, as so eloquently argued by your good self, in that the people involved may not actually want to be self-employed, and may not meet the Revenue's measure of what constitutes being self-employed. On this interpretation of Kevin's comments, it would be the company that call its staff self-employed that would be perpetrating tax fraud, rather than the 'self-employed' archaeologist. I didn't take Kevin's comments to be having a go at true self-employed archaeologists, rather it's a criticism of companies that force it's employees into a situation where they have all the responsibilities and drawbacks of being self-employed (responsibility for own tax and national insurance, no sick or holiday pay etc) without any of the benefits (freedom to set own work programme, charge rates etc).

[kevin wooldridge]

Kevin at what point is the tax fraud?

I didn't say it was a tax fraud. I said that such persons were defrauding the tax authority (HMRC)..... who are also responsible for collection of National Insurance contributions. An employed person should be paying their own contributon (deducted from income) and in addition there is the employers contribution. The SE only pay the individual Class 4 NIC and not the employers part. HMRC estimate that such defrauding is costing in excess of ?350 millions per annum....That's a lot of cash that could be available for all sorts of worthy causes (not least heritage and museums and pension payments!!)....

[Unitof1]

come on kev since when has an archaeologist been a navvy cis worker or anywhere near 350 million.

http://www.pannone.com/media/articles/construction-and-engineering/crackdown-on-bogus-self-employment-in-the-construction-industry

A self-employed archaeologist is not allowed to work in cis nor are architects. As for the so called short fall on the stupid national insurance which isnt any thing but income tax. SEs pay that on their profit as well as their minimum payments totally according to the law. Again it seems to me that you are trying to have a go at self-employed archaeologists when it is illegal employers that are the concern.

Please name them if you know of any. I presume that it is an offence not to.

[Martin Locock]

Unit- self employed pay Class 4 NI contribution, employed pay Class 1 (employees: additional to employers). The rates are different. NI is separate to Income Tax.

[Wax]

I have followed this with great deal of interest and learnt much. As some one who on occasions undertakes self-employed work I follow the on line Government test. The rules are simple, are the terms and conditions of the contract ( Gentlemen's agreement etc) open to negotiation with the person undertaking the work dictating many of the terms? if there is no option for negotiation I do not regard it as self-employment and walk away. What is clearly the case is that many employers who have to take on casual work forces are cutting their costs by forcing that work force to be self-employed. It is not the self-employed workers who are in the wrong but the companies who are forcing them down that route. This is not done in ignorance by those employers but with a clear understanding that they are avoiding the additional National Insurance contributions they should be making. This is clearly intention to defraud HMRC, there should be no IFA registered organisations doing this.

If there is absolutely no difference between regular work with the employer and self- employment with that employer then it is not self-employment and the employer is commiting fraud.

This is at least how I understand it. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of the employers not the individuals forced into self-employment thought they should be questioning what they are doing and how they are allowing the employer to continue with a criminal system. It is clear from the posts that this is a crime and not just a way to keep archaeologists in a job.

And of course all you self employed archaeologists do have insurance and pay national insurance and Tax don't you?

[kevin wooldridge]

HMRC runs a tax evasion hotline where it is possible to report tax or NI evasion....maybe if a few disgruntled archaeologists used this against employers who they believe are abusing the SE status, some action might be taken...


http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tax-evasion/

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]Unit- self employed pay Class 4 NI contribution, employed pay Class 1 (employees: additional to employers). The rates are different. NI is separate to Income Tax.
[/SIZE]

and the rest

First off all SEs have to pay Class 2 contributions that are due regardless of trading profits or losses. That’s not nice is it in the world of cash flow is it.

As for “ni is separate to Income tax” try this in the jumper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/10/national-insurance-and-income-tax-should-be-merged

[SIZE=3]What is clearly the case is that many employers who have to take on casual work forces are cutting their costs by forcing that work force to be self-employed. It is not the self-employed workers who are in the wrong but the companies who are forcing them down that route.
[/SIZE]

clear as mud

Wax whats with the workers bit, how about trying to call them archaeologists as in self employed archaeologists. Being called an archaeologist amongst equals is what we are fighting for. If you consider “them” to be archaeologists then the “employers” become clients. Cutting their costs is a given, whats more important is the archaeologist bit. Don’t give it away.

Kev so you know the tax evasion hotline number but have you used it?-no

[SIZE=3]I would say and have said for many years, that there are in reality very few genuinely self-employed archaeologists

.[/SIZE]

I am self-employed archaeologist well thats what I have told the tax authorities-presumably I am not genuine but they dont seen to care about the genuine bit.

Kev are you an archaeologist? I would suggest that if you are the problem that you have is working for other archaeologists.

[Wax]

I know I really should not rise to the bait but I did not use the term self employed archaeologists as I was thinking of all self/employed people. There are other professions that are facing the same problems. Any way what's wrong with the term workers? (or is it old hat now that socialism is out of fashion?)

And unless I have totally misunderstood the Government guidance web sites you do not have to pay national insurance as a self employed person but if you don't you do not get all those benefits such as a state pension, social security etc. There's a reason to pay tax and National insurance. I for one think the services I have had off the state in the last 30 years or so make it well worth the money. Try totalling the actual cost of the services you get for free on the NHS. You may not need them now but we all get old and most of us will end up with a debilitating illness at the end.

[BAJR]

This discussion ha been interesting, but I would ask one final list of questions.

a) Do the BAJR and IfA guidance documents matter?

b) As it is clear that for dodgy SE - it is the employer that calls the shots. provides the contract, makes the pay rate, etc... then it is they who should be investigated and if found guilty then the Tax Office will deal with them. However, many se archaeologists seem to forget that the money they got at the end of the week/month etc in nice crisp banknotes ... you have to log that and pay tax as well. and if the company is investigated and found with dodgy accounts,... you will be next. I did now of a company I once worked for being investigated - the fall out for the workers is still raw. SHOULD companies be reported for false SE employment?

c) Although it is up to a person how much the charge themselves out at, it has to be remembered that the less they charge, the less others charge, then they will have to charge even less.... etc. Like Employed rates, I strongly believe that there should also be SE minima below which you don't go, as it will harm all of us in the long term.