The taxman is claiming that Umbrellas are trying to steal from him, but is it the other way round? Travel and subsistence: It’s robbery
HMRC is trying to reach the conclusion that overarching contracts of employment (OAC) are a form of underhand scheme designed by shady Umbrella organisations and other non-compliant employment intermediaries to avoid paying an estimated £400m in Income Tax and National Insurance.
There is no doubt that modern employment models have moved on since the original tax legislation was first drafted, but subsequent tax changes have simply not kept pace with current practice.
Nevertheless, for HMRC to contemplate removal of tax reliefs on previously acceptable expenses, which they introduced, based on an argument that too many people may be benefiting, is a poor argument that will not protect the interests of the vulnerable and lower paid.
Following the issue of a discussion document in December 2014 HMRC invited comment from stakeholders in the temporary labour market, to help the Revenue determine if some end hirers, agencies and Umbrellas, pressurise temporary workers to operate under OACs which in turn allows them to make claims for home to work travel costs that would otherwise be ‘normal commuting’ in order to reduce overall tax payable to HM Treasury.
What is really interesting is the reasons that HMRC have stated as to why they believe contractors should not be entitled to claim travel and subsistence from home to their place of work:
- “It’s not fair” on other taxpayers who cannot claim, as these other taxpayers are effectively subsidising abuse.
- “We want to level the playing field” and treat all taxpayers in the same manner
- “Technically flawed planning schemes” being deliberate abuse especially of the vulnerable workforce.
- “Because the Treasury wants to collect more tax” – to reduce public borrowing we could always collect more tax.
It seems most likely that if all of the reasons why HMRC want to change the rules are placed in order of importance, then the final one is the biggest driver and therefore highest priority, as they themselves confirmed. The remaining issues are the political justification for a very unpopular and ill-considered project.
When a worker travels from home to their place of work, the primary assumption is that this is normal commuting and tax relief for the costs of travelling or subsistence is not allowable. However, legislation provides for an exception to this restriction if the travel is to a ‘temporary’ place of employment, rather than a ‘permanent’ one.
This ability (under certain circumstances) for the existence of an OAC to transform what would otherwise be a permanent workplace into a temporary one is what creates the tax relief for expenses.
Other types of workers not engaged under an OAC (permanent, or short term agency contracts), could sit next to an Umbrella worker, may make the same journey from home to the same place of work and are not able to claim tax relief for their travel costs. So there is a moral justification and a case for symmetry of treatment but that only carries weight if one assumes the risks, responsibilities and rights and obligations are also the same for differing types of worker. Which they are not…
HMRC wish to collect £400m more in taxation, remove this inequality, level the playing field and stamp out tax avoidance…and protect the vulnerable worker’s rights and income! (It is not disputed that within this figure some non-compliant business models exist, which rely upon an aggressive interpretation of how the tax laws should be applied. They may fail under anti-avoidance legislation and remain a legitimate target for HMRC.)
The alternative options suggested by HMRC to collect this tax are also open to comment and may even be extended to include personal service companies (PSCs). Today’s main targets seem to be Umbrellas and tax avoidance scheme users; tomorrow’s may well include an attack on the independence of PSCs and small businesses.
If we assume that the estimate of tax loss from HMRC is indeed correct at £400m and HMRC outlaw current tax avoidance models and legislate to make all travelling from home to work under OAC non tax deductible, who will be the losers?
Any increase in the tax take has to come from somewhere. Will contractors and temporary workers in general, but especially at the lower skilled end of the market, be able to afford this additional burden? Will they be able to pass it on to their employer (the Umbrella)? Will the Umbrella be able to pass it on (via the agency) to the end hirer?
Will UK plc be willing to pick up the costs of an extra £400m and in doing so accept this hit to their profits? If they do, the taxable profits of UK plc will fall by the same amount and reduce the tax they pay by approximately £84m…I’m not convinced.
Umbrella v Limited – what’s right for you? Understand your options and contract with confidence. Contact us to discuss your options.
This blog has been prepared by Intouch Accounting. While we have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained in this blog has been obtained from reliable sources, Intouch is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. This blog should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional accounting advisers. If you have any specific queries, please contact Intouch Accounting.