It was revealed yesterday that more than 100 estate agents are preparing to take legal action against Purplebricks. Some of those that worked for the online estate agents argue that they are entitled to holiday pay and pension provisions, as they effectively work for the company, despite being classed as self-employed.
This case is the latest looking to emulate successful claims made on behalf of the gig economy, such as the ride-hailing app Uber.
Lee McIntyre-Hamilton, tax partner at Keystone Law, has been advising on employment tax matters for more than 20 years. His expertise covers employer and employee tax compliance, tax on pensions for mobile employees and operating tax equalisation arrangements.
In his latest commentary, McIntyre-Hamilton explains the differences in employment status for tax and employment law purposes. It is arguable that this distinction is often overlooked.
He said: “Following this and other recent high-profile cases, together with the well-publicised HMRC changes to the IR35 legislation in recent years, there is clearly a growing awareness of employment status in the workforce.
“This growing awareness should be heeded as a warning to employers who are deliberately breaching the rules. However, more prominently, it will also no doubt cause concern for many employers who are genuinely trying to comply with the rules but, owing to their complexity and the fact that employment status is based largely on case law, may incorrectly assess the position.
“It is also important in these cases to recognise that there are differences in employment status for tax and employment law purposes. For example, in the Uber case, drivers were deemed to be ‘workers’ under employment law, giving them entitlement to certain employment rights. However, there is no ‘worker’ status for tax purposes and an individual is either employed or self-employed.
“In the Uber case, HMRC appears to be satisfied that, for tax purposes, Uber drivers are still deemed to be self-employed and do not need to be put on a payroll.”
Purplebricks faces legal action from agents over holiday and pension pay
The law has been clear on this for a long time – PB et al have simply been gaming the system and if they get done? Quelle surprise…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I could never understand how they got away with it. They were driving a coach and horses through employment law and were cheered on by our politicians. 8 years up the road and finally PB is being revealed for what it was. Past tense used deliberately.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Let’s not forget the lies told about ‘it being your own business’. But first let’s get this employment status case sorted, and of PB have any money left we can move onto the next one. However it’s doubtful, the interest payments due on backdated pensions and holiday pay are mouthwatering on their own. You reap what you sow.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register