News: Annabelle Fuller resigns from UKIP

Anthony Butcher · 05-08-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Worstall

Can't say, I'm not party to all of the arrangements (at the moment at least). I just know from conversation that Annabelle was self employed in the tax sense in the UK.

I thought that IR35 did away with permanent self-employment contracts? I should add that I don't really know anything about employment law!

Aardvark · 05-08-2008, 07:10 PM

Rumour is she might be about to start work with Bob Spink. Anybody heard anything different?

The result in the Brooks case might be pertinent in explaining away Annabelle's status. I was a sub-contracted self-employed political assistant of Ashley Mote and the contract made clear that there was no intention to create an employer/employee relatinship.

The video/disks etc must, however, have belonged to the party as part of the selection process and I would contend that they are responsible for their security. I wait with bated breath to see what happens.

tamashi · 05-08-2008, 07:53 PM

Any "self employed" person with only one client/customer would find it very hard to justify such a status long term to the Inland Revenue. If individuals are paid for a specific activity for a specified period, eg Press Officer for Henley By-election or Campaign Manager 2009 European Parliament Elections, then this would be acceptable. If someone is a Press Officer on a long term contract then they would need other clients as well as UKIP in order to retain self employed status. The test would be if it was reasonable for the "employer" to withold tax and National Insurance or if it would be reasonable to pay that person gross and they make their own arrangements with the taxman. Working full time for a single client on an open ended timescale makes you an employee. Working for a mix of clients who time share you makes you self employed as it would be unreasonable to expect one of your clients to withold tax and NI but not the others. I work as a self employed contractor and include the phrase below on all my invoices.

"I am registered self employed with HM Inland Revenue Service under Tax Reference ABC/0000000 and National Insurance No: WK 00 00 00 X"

IR35 did make it difficult to work long term for a single client as a contractor. The way round it was to register a limited company and the client then contracted with that company to supply services and paid gross the same as to any other supplier. The company only usually had one employee of course!

Anthony Butcher · 05-08-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamashi

IR35 did make it difficult to work long term for a single client as a contractor. The way round it was to register a limited company and the client then contracted with that company to supply services and paid gross the same as to any other supplier. The company only usually had one employee of course!

Surely the tax man will see through that too?

mrabody · 05-08-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Surely the tax man will see through that too?

Apparently they don't. And if you are earning enough there are large tax advantages to be had in using a limited company.

douglas denny · 05-08-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

quote Aardvark

The video/disks etc must, however, have belonged to the party as part of the selection process and I would contend that they are responsible for their security. I wait with bated breath to see what happens.

If the party has ownership of the video content;
and is therefore responsible for the security of the material; then it follows that the party has copyright of the material.

And if anyone has agreed to provide interview material as part of the interview process;
and notwithstanding that said material is for the purposes of assessing suitability for public engagement, i.e. is expressly for assessing the expression of that person in a public fashion as if under public scrutiny;

then:
is it not the case that the copyright of the material is in the possession of the party and, therefore, no breach of either copyright or data protection is involved - unless that is, the party wishes to sue the perpetrator of any breach of security of the material being released. i.e. that it is up to the party to sue Miss AF. if it so wishes?

In other words, does possession of copyright along with the agreement to be part of the interview process make the material exclusively in the party's domain, and therefore indemnified from any claims of the participant(s) of the interview(s)?

I would contend it is most likely the same case law, as the use and copyright of photographic images: that providing a person has agreed to the taking of a photograph and its use by someone else, the copyright and exclusive use passes to that someone else, - the owner of the photo.

Is not the whole thing about this video of West a storm in a teacup?

So Aardie ... you are the lawyer you keep telling us.. so, please tell me what is involved here in law.

Thank you.

DED
-

gumshoe · 05-08-2008, 09:43 PM

As I understand it there is a simple test for self-employed status.

If you only have one employer, work in their office and are directed by them you are not self-employed.

A common way round the problem is to be employed through an agency, but these days the agency has to allow for paying sick pay and holiday money as well as VAT. It becomes very expensive. However if the E.U. has plenty of money, that is immaterial. The main benefit of this is that you can have a contract which can be terminated on either side without any notice.

I think if an employer consulted a tax accountant he would normally urge caution when considering taking somebody on as self-employed. Some people are prepared to look at it differently but if the tax-man cometh???

Aardvark · 05-08-2008, 09:49 PM

DD, I have always stated that I am a non-practising Barrister, for clarity.

Data is subject to copyright, but is also subject to the DPA. Sine qua non.

douglas denny · 05-08-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

DD, I have always stated that I am a non-practising Barrister, for clarity.

Data is subject to copyright, but is also subject to the DPA. Sine qua non.

I am not fully familiar with the rules of DPA. Perhaps you are?

I would have thought copyright is exclusive and of prime priority, and without a complaint to the DPA from the owner of material (which is subject to DPA) and which has been transferred without permission from said owner, - that there is no cause for involvement of the DPA. Yes / no?

Or, to be more specific; is it not the case that West has no grounds for complaint as the copyright of material using his image and words has passed from him to the party?

What is your opinon?

Thanks.

DED.
-

Aardvark · 05-08-2008, 10:15 PM

My opinion, and I am subject to correction by a practising lawyer, is that all data on named individuals gathered by the party is subject to the DPA. That appears to be the law.

05-08-2008, 07:10 PM	#122 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,918	Rumour is she might be about to start work with Bob Spink. Anybody heard anything different? The result in the Brooks case might be pertinent in explaining away Annabelle's status. I was a sub-contracted self-employed political assistant of Ashley Mote and the contract made clear that there was no intention to create an employer/employee relatinship. The video/disks etc must, however, have belonged to the party as part of the selection process and I would contend that they are responsible for their security. I wait with bated breath to see what happens. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

05-08-2008, 09:49 PM	#128 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,918	DD, I have always stated that I am a non-practising Barrister, for clarity. Data is subject to copyright, but is also subject to the DPA. Sine qua non. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

05-08-2008, 10:15 PM	#130 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,918	My opinion, and I am subject to correction by a practising lawyer, is that all data on named individuals gathered by the party is subject to the DPA. That appears to be the law. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-08-2008, 07:53 PM	#123 (permalink)
tamashi Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 523	Any "self employed" person with only one client/customer would find it very hard to justify such a status long term to the Inland Revenue. If individuals are paid for a specific activity for a specified period, eg Press Officer for Henley By-election or Campaign Manager 2009 European Parliament Elections, then this would be acceptable. If someone is a Press Officer on a long term contract then they would need other clients as well as UKIP in order to retain self employed status. The test would be if it was reasonable for the "employer" to withold tax and National Insurance or if it would be reasonable to pay that person gross and they make their own arrangements with the taxman. Working full time for a single client on an open ended timescale makes you an employee. Working for a mix of clients who time share you makes you self employed as it would be unreasonable to expect one of your clients to withold tax and NI but not the others. I work as a self employed contractor and include the phrase below on all my invoices. "I am registered self employed with HM Inland Revenue Service under Tax Reference ABC/0000000 and National Insurance No: WK 00 00 00 X" IR35 did make it difficult to work long term for a single client as a contractor. The way round it was to register a limited company and the client then contracted with that company to supply services and paid gross the same as to any other supplier. The company only usually had one employee of course!

05-08-2008, 09:43 PM	#127 (permalink)
gumshoe Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 44	As I understand it there is a simple test for self-employed status. If you only have one employer, work in their office and are directed by them you are not self-employed. A common way round the problem is to be employed through an agency, but these days the agency has to allow for paying sick pay and holiday money as well as VAT. It becomes very expensive. However if the E.U. has plenty of money, that is immaterial. The main benefit of this is that you can have a contract which can be terminated on either side without any notice. I think if an employer consulted a tax accountant he would normally urge caution when considering taking somebody on as self-employed. Some people are prepared to look at it differently but if the tax-man cometh???