Recruitment Consultancies
ASDA deal not model solution
ARC challenges AWR
Social Media Networking as a tool
Employment status case law update
Umbrella problems damage reputation
Umbrella Company Problems
Limited companies within AWD Regulations
ARC reports on the Agency Workers Directive Part 2
Company opt outs to be retained - 12/11/09
ARC wins gold plating argument
2nd Consultation is Published - First impressions
Delay to Agency Workers Directive a welcome first
Fines imposed for Anti-Competitive activities
HMRC announces clampdown on expenses - 05/10/2009
Departing employees? - protecting client relations
“Vulnerable” Workers Helpline
Periods of sick leave and annual leave coinciding
Can you supply to replace workers on strike?
'Last in first out' redundancies
Need for a forensic approach to the AWD
Brown bows to union pressure at the TUC conference
HR set to hire direct - 16/09/2009
Seminar - Agency Workers Directive Second Consulta
Holiday pay decision
Planned increased in the national minimum wage
Employment status
ARC membership quadruples with legislation message
Construction industry
Swine flu and sickness absence
AWD threatens temp to perm fees
Government massively gold plating AWD says IoD and
More on the Agency Workers Directive
ARC exposes Agency Worker Directive.
ARC takes lead on Agency Workers Directive
Lawspeed to hold seminars on the AWD
Lawspeed seminar - Agency Workers Directive First
Consultation on Agency Workers Directive published
Lawspeed launches membership organisation
Government announces consultation - March '09
European Parliament votes to get rid of opt-out -
Pre budget report allows employment umbrellas off
Formation of Representative Group - expenses consu
Government announces yet more measures - this time
Agency Workers Directive - sleepwalk to disaster?
EU Council reaches agreement on principles of Agen
Agency Workers to get Employment Rights - May '08
Employment status and increased rights for agency
Changes to Conduct Regulations & Agency Standards
Case partially clarifies agency worker employment
HMRC Drops MSC Audit Scheme - December '07
Who could be an MSCP? - December '07
Agency Workers to get Employment Rights
HMRC has clarified its current position in relatio
MSC approval schemes update - September '07
MSC Legislation - Further Guidance - September 07
MSC Legislation - Finance Bill Passed - August '07
MSC Legislation Update. May '07
Budget Note - MSC Legislation Changes March '07
08/02/07 - 3rd party debt provisions released
Lawspeed meets Treasury re: MSC Consultation - Jan
Government announces consultation "Tackling Manage
HMRC announces start of a review of the concession
Extending paid holiday entitlement. July '06
Good news on employment status. May '06
Employment Status - Cable & Wireless Court of App
Employment status – where are we now? October '05
When is an agency worker an employee? July '05
Cable & Wireless v Muscat – Agency Clients Respond
End User held to be the employer of agency worker
Brook Street case opens door for tribunal claims J
New EAT case poses danger February '03
DTI's employment status review
EU agency workers directive
Working time and holiday pay
Risk management and insurance
Employment rights for contractors
Agency regulations - the way forward
Press > Recruitment Consultancies

MSC approval schemes update - September '07

Printer friendly version

Confusion reigns over MSC approval schemes – or does it?


Accreditation scheme

For some months there has been speculation that an accreditation scheme, whereby HMRC will exclude certain organisations that are accredited from the scope of the MSC legislation, is under consideration by HMRC. Whilst this may be in the interests of those organisations that operate as centralised “accountancy” service providers  to workers provided via limited companies, the idea has always been open to question.

Within the legislation the government is empowered to exclude certain types of organisation by order. On the face of it, to exclude centralised service providers that otherwise would be classed as Managed Service Company Providers would appear to be out of the question as defeating the objective of the legislation. Therefore there would need to be some approval method by which such organisations would become accredited – perhaps by accepting that advice given and services offered are in line with tax legislation.  

HMRC has consistently said that it has insufficient resource to set up such a scheme. Our own enquiries of HMRC have established that an accreditation scheme has been considered and wholly rejected, and so speculation in relation to an accreditation scheme is nothing more than that.

Audit scheme

More recently it has been suggested that a separate scheme, an audit scheme, is to be announced in the near future and is close to fruition. To some extent this may have been fuelled by an announcement on the HMRC website that a scheme is being considered, but it is important to note that the words used by HMRC say nothing more than that. It is more than a leap and a bound to read into it that any such scheme is imminent.

This scheme would involve the undertaking of audits of scheme providers, the audits apparently to be undertaken by the big four accountancy firms. The suggested benefits would include enabling employment businesses to identify whether a personal service company operating with assistance from a scheme provider would be an MSC. It is impliedly suggested that a service provider passed by the “imminently to be announced” audit would not be an MSCP.

In our opinion such a scheme would be dangerous unless it is fully accredited by HMRC. This is because to exclude any risk to an employment business using the audited service provider, HMRC would have to accept that the positively audited organisation is accepted as excluded from the MSC legislation for the audit approved period. Otherwise the risk of being caught by debt transfer as a result of using such a provider remains roughly the same as if there is no audit scheme.

It is also rumoured that there may be a scheme to audit employment businesses processes in relation to the use of personal service companies. If the processes meet a standard then the assumption is that the employment business will be immune from transfer of debt, otherwise there is no point to it. Again this could not possible work without full HMRC endorsement. And it is hard to see how it is possible to accurately audit process in a way which will establish conformity given that the policies of management are not always followed by consultants dealing with the candidates, and internal practice may change from day to day.

But this is to ignore a more important question. Is any audit scheme on the cards at all, let alone close to fruition?

Whilst an audit scheme may be under consideration, I understand that it is at the very earliest stages, no framework for discussion with the accountancy profession having yet been agreed. Nor has the format for any audit been settled, and the ramifications have not yet even been fully considered by government. Even if a scheme is put forward by HMRC in due course, acceptance by the accountancy profession, which would be key to its operation, is by no means certain.

Considerations by both government and the accountancy profession would no doubt include matters relating to conflict of interests, and the protection of the founding principles of the MSC legislation which extend to ensuring that tax is not avoided by workers operating through limited companies with the help of a service provider operating  for that purpose. Accordingly any such scheme may only result in genuine accountancy firms being able to establish that they are not MSCPs. Only to that extent would it help employment businesses determine whether a personal service company is an MSC, and help contractors seek advice from the right quarter.

Unless the government does a policy U-turn, in my view such a scheme is unlikely to assist organisations that are set up to help personal service companies to avoid tax, other than by identifying them as no longer having any role to play in the market place. In the meantime someone would have to pay for the scheme – I doubt the mainstream accountancy profession would wish to contribute.

Danger of speculation

The implication of persistence of speculation and rumour concerning such schemes is that one or other will be brought in. As can be seen, that is not to be the case for accreditation, and may not happen for some considerable time, if at all, for an audit scheme.

There is a danger for employment businesses in relying upon rumour or speculation in this area. To do so may undoubtedly result in either delaying or skewing policy decisions relating to the use of MSCs. Danger already exists for some employment business themselves classed as MSCPs, and arises on 6th January 2008 when the debt transfer provisions apply generally. Relying on the misplaced belief that an audit scheme will save the day is unlikely to influence the tax inspector.

Not wishing to be a stick in the mud, but the time to consider any scheme is if and when it is actually announced, and not before. Would a scheme to protect employment businesses be a good idea? Yes, but that, and whether it is possible, are other questions altogether.

Here’s a thought for a scheme that would not involve expensive audits at all, and that seems to appeal to agencies we have discussed with. The scheme would involve HMRC recognising worker companies, that are genuinely in business on their own account, by way of a certificate. This allows the company to seek accountancy advice from wheresoever it chooses, take advantage of tax breaks for companies, and the employment business to pay gross without fear of debt transfer. It would also seem to meet HMRC’s stated objectives in recovering correct levels of tax. A scheme such as this, already exists – CIS. Now, does that have any merit?

Further information

This issue will be covered and more information will be provided by HMRC policy representative, Robin Wythes at Lawspeed’s MSC and EAA Regulations seminar and Q&A session on 11th October 2007 at London Chamber of Commerce, for which bookings (call 01273 236236) are currently being taken.

Adrian Marlowe
Lawspeed
19th September 2007

Back to the top
Printer friendly version