Nicola Walters, of the Inland Revenue, takes much the same line as Dawn Primarolo, the paymaster general, did in Committee to our suggestion that there is a loophole in IR35 for same-sex couples. Richard Ottaway, Shadow paymaster general
This legislation, which is a serious assault on those operating through a personal service company, also attempts to deal with the situation where the intermediary is a partnership, instead of a company, and the husband and wife are partners. True to form, this politically correct government inserts in the interpretation section the statement that a man and a woman living together as husband and wife are to be treated as if they are married to each other.
Our probing amendment simply enquired what if the unmarried partners are of the same sex? Ms Walters and Ms Primarolo argue that our amendment was unnecessary as there are other rules in the legislation that will have the same effect where partners of the same sex control a company or partnership. However, when challenged in Committee to say where in the legislation those rules would be found, there was nothing coming from the paymaster general, either because they are not there or she didn't know.
However, the assertion that there are rules that cover same-sex couples begs the question, why was it necessary to produce an anti-avoidance clause for a heterosexual couple but rely on rules elsewhere for same-sex couples. Surely the same rules should cover either situation?
IR35 is a blatant attempt to change the employed/self-employed boundaries and destroy the use of personal service companies or partnerships - gays and lesbians had better read the small print.
This article came from AccountancyAge