Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Working in the UK for a Swiss company
1,281 views
Skip to first unread message
D.M. Procida
Mar 24, 2014, 7:36:01 AM3/24/14
to
Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
practices?
How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
Thanks,
Daniele
practices?
How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
Thanks,
Daniele
Message has been deleted
GB
Mar 24, 2014, 8:54:33 AM3/24/14
to
On 24/03/2014 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
> If they are being paid in the UK, I would imagine all UK employment laws
> would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
> legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
> headquarters are based.
>
But the employer might not even have a branch office in the UK.
> would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
> legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
> headquarters are based.
>
But the employer might not even have a branch office in the UK.
Roland Perry
Mar 24, 2014, 9:05:29 AM3/24/14
to
In message <53302b12$0$1421$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 12:54:33 on
Mon, 24 Mar 2014, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
contract of employment is (Switzerland or UK) and where the "PAYE"
scheme under which cheques are drawn up is located, before we can
sensibly comment.
--
Roland Perry
Mon, 24 Mar 2014, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>>> Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>>> practices?
>>>
>>> How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>>>
>>> If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>>> the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>>> pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Daniele
>>
>> If they are being paid in the UK, I would imagine all UK employment laws
>> would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
>> legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
>> headquarters are based.
>
>But the employer might not even have a branch office in the UK.
Indeed. We first have to understand what the address on the OP's
>>> practices?
>>>
>>> How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>>>
>>> If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>>> the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>>> pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Daniele
>>
>> If they are being paid in the UK, I would imagine all UK employment laws
>> would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
>> legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
>> headquarters are based.
>
>But the employer might not even have a branch office in the UK.
contract of employment is (Switzerland or UK) and where the "PAYE"
scheme under which cheques are drawn up is located, before we can
sensibly comment.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
Mar 24, 2014, 10:09:56 AM3/24/14
to
"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:hUxxXl+Z...@perry.co.uk...
Chris R
Mar 24, 2014, 10:18:40 AM3/24/14
to
>
>
> "Chris R" wrote in message
> news:7uedncDTB_Yloa3O...@brightview.co.uk...
Which law and jurisdiction applies to the contract is likely to depend on
where the bulk of the duties are performed.
Tax treatment and the operation of the PAYE system have no bearing. You can
easily be taxed on earnings under one contract in several jurisdictions, if
you move around.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Mar 24, 2014, 10:59:33 AM3/24/14
to
In message <DLmdnRlMp6tZo63O...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:18:40 on Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
that they are performed on the employer's teleworking platform, wherever
that is, and not the place the person happens to telework from.
>Tax treatment and the operation of the PAYE system have no bearing. You can
>easily be taxed on earnings under one contract in several jurisdictions, if
>you move around.
I don't think we are in a situation of "moving around" here. It's more a
case of where the people are most of the time, compared to where the
person they are working for has registered them on their payroll.
Lets take a hypothetical example: I'm working for a company based in
Australia, who pays me in Australian dollars, and expects the work to be
delivered to them electronically in Australia. I happen to live in
England.
Do I come under Australian or UK employment law - let's take a trivial
example... the statutory number of days holiday, and whether I get paid
at 100% of my usual rate [the UK scheme] or something like 125% the rate
[the Australian scheme, which apparently pays employees on holiday more
because they have more expenses while on holiday than while working].
--
Roland Perry
14:18:40 on Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>Which law and jurisdiction applies to the contract is likely to depend on
>where the bulk of the duties are performed.
For teleworkers, where are the duties performed? There's a good argument
>where the bulk of the duties are performed.
that they are performed on the employer's teleworking platform, wherever
that is, and not the place the person happens to telework from.
>Tax treatment and the operation of the PAYE system have no bearing. You can
>easily be taxed on earnings under one contract in several jurisdictions, if
>you move around.
case of where the people are most of the time, compared to where the
person they are working for has registered them on their payroll.
Lets take a hypothetical example: I'm working for a company based in
Australia, who pays me in Australian dollars, and expects the work to be
delivered to them electronically in Australia. I happen to live in
England.
Do I come under Australian or UK employment law - let's take a trivial
example... the statutory number of days holiday, and whether I get paid
at 100% of my usual rate [the UK scheme] or something like 125% the rate
[the Australian scheme, which apparently pays employees on holiday more
because they have more expenses while on holiday than while working].
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Mar 24, 2014, 11:21:09 AM3/24/14
to
> Tax treatment and the operation of the PAYE system have no bearing.
> You can easily be taxed on earnings under one contract in several
> jurisdictions, if you move around.
+1 If the employer has no establishment in the UK then the PAYE regs.
> You can easily be taxed on earnings under one contract in several
> jurisdictions, if you move around.
provide for HMRC to require the employee to require the employee to
operate PAYE (a "Direct Payment" scheme). They can also require the
employee to account for NICs (if it's not an employer in an EU state).
OTOH if the employee works for someone in the UK that person, while not
the employer, might fall to be required under s.689 ITEPA to operate
PAYE.
I suggest the question about pension contributions is also far too wide.
Are we talking about a pension scheme in the UK? In Switzerland?
Somewhere else? And what aspects of them: employers statutory
obligations? tax relief? regulation? drawdown? [NB not that I am
offering to answer all or any of them.]
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Robin
Mar 24, 2014, 12:10:02 PM3/24/14
to
>
> Do I come under Australian or UK employment law
I suggest the first questions to answer are (a) is the work in question
> Do I come under Australian or UK employment law
is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
business in GB[1]. If not then many questions are moot as the employee
won't be able to enforce rights as an Employment Tribunal won't have
jurisdiction (see SI 2004/1861 [2]).
[1] I don't know about NI and CBA'd to find out
[2] a reference which I had to look up so I certainly can't answer
questions about how the territorial limits are interpreted. It's a
decades since I had to dive into dual employment contracts and like
stuff
Roland Perry
Mar 24, 2014, 12:27:35 PM3/24/14
to
In message <lgplbr$vrc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:02 on Mon, 24 Mar
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
help.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I suggest the first questions to answer are (a) is the work in question
>is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
>business in GB[1].
Agreed. And until the OP has at least a stab at both of those, we can't
>is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
>business in GB[1].
help.
--
Roland Perry
tim.....
Mar 24, 2014, 2:14:16 PM3/24/14
to
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:lgp6kb$k0o$1...@dont-email.me...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:36:01 +0000, D.M. Procida wrote:
If they are being paid in the UK, I would imagine all UK employment laws
would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
headquarters are based.
---------------------------------------------------------
would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
headquarters are based.
Something Ryanair try frequently
tim
tim.....
Mar 24, 2014, 2:16:02 PM3/24/14
to
"Chris R" wrote in message
One of the points raised was specifically pensions, so yes it does
tim
Mark Goodge
Mar 24, 2014, 5:53:21 PM3/24/14
to
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:36:01 +0000, D.M. Procida put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>practices?
>
>How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
For most practical purposes as far as the employee is concerned, there are
no significant differences. Minimum holiday entitlement, sick pay, notice
periods, etc are pretty much the same as the UK. The only major difference
is that Switzerland has no minimum wage, but that's unlikely to be an issue
for any non-Swiss national working for a Swiss employer.
Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, but, for the sake of simplicity (and
bearing in mind that Swizerland is a land-locked country entirely
surrounded by EU states with which it has an open border, so there is
significant cross-border employment), the majority of its employment laws
are inter-operable with their EU (and hence UK) equivalents.
The one exception to this is that Switzerland requires EU nationals to
obtain a work permit if they want to work in Switzerland for more than 90
days a year. Until recently this was effectively little more than a
formality (essentially a foreigner tax, you simply had to fill in a form
and pay for the permit just like you do for a motorway carnet), but
recently quotas have been introduced which mean that not everyone who
applies for a permit is guaranteed to get one.
>If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
As a general rule, the laws which apply are those where the employee is
based and spends most of his time. But it can be complicated where the
employee has an official base in a head office in one country but actually
spends most of his time in another (eg, a sales representative assigned to
a foreign territory but who returns to base in between assignments or for
regular meetings). It's the sort of thing where, if there is any ambiguity,
it's best to get professional advice.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
typed:
>Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>practices?
>
>How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
no significant differences. Minimum holiday entitlement, sick pay, notice
periods, etc are pretty much the same as the UK. The only major difference
is that Switzerland has no minimum wage, but that's unlikely to be an issue
for any non-Swiss national working for a Swiss employer.
Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, but, for the sake of simplicity (and
bearing in mind that Swizerland is a land-locked country entirely
surrounded by EU states with which it has an open border, so there is
significant cross-border employment), the majority of its employment laws
are inter-operable with their EU (and hence UK) equivalents.
The one exception to this is that Switzerland requires EU nationals to
obtain a work permit if they want to work in Switzerland for more than 90
days a year. Until recently this was effectively little more than a
formality (essentially a foreigner tax, you simply had to fill in a form
and pay for the permit just like you do for a motorway carnet), but
recently quotas have been introduced which mean that not everyone who
applies for a permit is guaranteed to get one.
>If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
based and spends most of his time. But it can be complicated where the
employee has an official base in a head office in one country but actually
spends most of his time in another (eg, a sales representative assigned to
a foreign territory but who returns to base in between assignments or for
regular meetings). It's the sort of thing where, if there is any ambiguity,
it's best to get professional advice.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Roland Perry
Mar 24, 2014, 6:31:33 PM3/24/14
to
In message <gt81j9hf4npulr47a...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:53:21 on Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
employment protection/redundancy payments between different EU
countries.
From a passing knowledge of the waivers employers like the UN get from
Switzerland, this is one area where the regular Swiss system is much
more generous than the UK.
--
Roland Perry
21:53:21 on Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>For most practical purposes as far as the employee is concerned, there are
>no significant differences. Minimum holiday entitlement, sick pay, notice
>periods, etc are pretty much the same as the UK. The only major difference
>is that Switzerland has no minimum wage, but that's unlikely to be an issue
>for any non-Swiss national working for a Swiss employer.
>
>Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, but, for the sake of simplicity (and
>bearing in mind that Swizerland is a land-locked country entirely
>surrounded by EU states with which it has an open border, so there is
>significant cross-border employment), the majority of its employment laws
>are inter-operable with their EU (and hence UK) equivalents.
The problem with this analysis is the huge disparity between things like
>no significant differences. Minimum holiday entitlement, sick pay, notice
>periods, etc are pretty much the same as the UK. The only major difference
>is that Switzerland has no minimum wage, but that's unlikely to be an issue
>for any non-Swiss national working for a Swiss employer.
>
>Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, but, for the sake of simplicity (and
>bearing in mind that Swizerland is a land-locked country entirely
>surrounded by EU states with which it has an open border, so there is
>significant cross-border employment), the majority of its employment laws
>are inter-operable with their EU (and hence UK) equivalents.
employment protection/redundancy payments between different EU
countries.
From a passing knowledge of the waivers employers like the UN get from
Switzerland, this is one area where the regular Swiss system is much
more generous than the UK.
--
Roland Perry
s_pick...@yahoo.com
Mar 24, 2014, 3:39:13 PM3/24/14
to
s_pick...@yahoo.com
Mar 24, 2014, 3:40:58 PM3/24/14
to
On Monday, 24 March 2014 18:14:16 UTC, tim..... wrote:
> "Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:lgp6kb$k0o$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:36:01 +0000, D.M. Procida wrote:
>
>
>
> > Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>
> > practices?
>
> >
>
> > How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>
> >
>
> > If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>
> > the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>
> > pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> > Daniele
>
>
>
> If they are being paid in the UK, I would imagine all UK employment laws
>
> would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
>
> legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
>
> headquarters are based.
>
This would not be to their advantage in the case of Indian call centres.
> "Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:lgp6kb$k0o$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:36:01 +0000, D.M. Procida wrote:
>
>
>
> > Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>
> > practices?
>
> >
>
> > How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>
> >
>
> > If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>
> > the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>
> > pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> > Daniele
>
>
>
> If they are being paid in the UK, I would imagine all UK employment laws
>
> would have to apply. Otherwise any multinational would be able to end-run
>
> legislation by claiming the employee is actually employed where their
>
> headquarters are based.
>
tim.....
Mar 25, 2014, 12:02:27 PM3/25/14
to
wrote in message
news:3a4cfaa3-295f-484d...@googlegroups.com...
who is the subject of your reply
the employer or the employee - it's far from obvious
tim
R. Mark Clayton
Mar 25, 2014, 1:30:45 PM3/25/14
to
"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1lj0el6.kychy41q50c6kN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
If you were employed in Switzerland and seconded to the UK then you would
remain Swiss employed and pay tax etc. there (well for six months anyway).
Ditto if you were their UK salesperson.
OTOH if you work for them in the UK (e.g. check in desk for Swissair) then
you would be UK employed.
Ryan Air are currently arguing this with the French authorities re their
cabin staff, whom they employ in Ireland to work on Irish registered
aircraft.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Mar 25, 2014, 6:40:42 PM3/25/14
to
factors, including where the employee spends most of his time.
There is a Swiss lawyer I have worked with on a number of occasions.
I'm sure he'd be happy to give you brief information/advice it would
be helpful to you. If you would like to contact him, email and and
I'll send you his contact information. The email address above
actually works.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Mark
Mar 26, 2014, 5:42:24 AM3/26/14
to
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:53:21 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:36:01 +0000, D.M. Procida put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>>practices?
>>
>>How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>
>For most practical purposes as far as the employee is concerned, there are
>no significant differences. Minimum holiday entitlement, sick pay, notice
>periods, etc are pretty much the same as the UK. The only major difference
>is that Switzerland has no minimum wage, but that's unlikely to be an issue
>for any non-Swiss national working for a Swiss employer.
>
>Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, but, for the sake of simplicity (and
>bearing in mind that Swizerland is a land-locked country entirely
>surrounded by EU states with which it has an open border, so there is
>significant cross-border employment), the majority of its employment laws
>are inter-operable with their EU (and hence UK) equivalents.
>
>The one exception to this is that Switzerland requires EU nationals to
>obtain a work permit if they want to work in Switzerland for more than 90
>days a year. Until recently this was effectively little more than a
>formality (essentially a foreigner tax, you simply had to fill in a form
>and pay for the permit just like you do for a motorway carnet), but
>recently quotas have been introduced which mean that not everyone who
>applies for a permit is guaranteed to get one.
Going back a long time it used to be a hell of a job getting work
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 11:36:01 +0000, D.M. Procida put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>>practices?
>>
>>How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>
>For most practical purposes as far as the employee is concerned, there are
>no significant differences. Minimum holiday entitlement, sick pay, notice
>periods, etc are pretty much the same as the UK. The only major difference
>is that Switzerland has no minimum wage, but that's unlikely to be an issue
>for any non-Swiss national working for a Swiss employer.
>
>Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, but, for the sake of simplicity (and
>bearing in mind that Swizerland is a land-locked country entirely
>surrounded by EU states with which it has an open border, so there is
>significant cross-border employment), the majority of its employment laws
>are inter-operable with their EU (and hence UK) equivalents.
>
>The one exception to this is that Switzerland requires EU nationals to
>obtain a work permit if they want to work in Switzerland for more than 90
>days a year. Until recently this was effectively little more than a
>formality (essentially a foreigner tax, you simply had to fill in a form
>and pay for the permit just like you do for a motorway carnet), but
>recently quotas have been introduced which mean that not everyone who
>applies for a permit is guaranteed to get one.
permits in Switzerland. I guess this was the 1990s. We used to have
people commuting in from Germany every day because the permits allowed
them to work but not live in Switzerland.
And I think the maximum working week is a lot bigger in Switzerland
judging how much people I know there work.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
Ian Jackson
Mar 30, 2014, 7:56:28 AM3/30/14
to
In article <lgplbr$vrc$1...@dont-email.me>, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I suggest the first questions to answer are (a) is the work in question
>is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
>business in GB[1]. If not then many questions are moot as the employee
>won't be able to enforce rights as an Employment Tribunal won't have
>jurisdiction (see SI 2004/1861 [2]).
Surely if I employ Alice, who is in Britain, I am "carrying on
>I suggest the first questions to answer are (a) is the work in question
>is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
>business in GB[1]. If not then many questions are moot as the employee
>won't be able to enforce rights as an Employment Tribunal won't have
>jurisdiction (see SI 2004/1861 [2]).
business" in Britain ?
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Roland Perry
Mar 30, 2014, 8:38:10 AM3/30/14
to
In message <8sz*Bg...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:56:28 on Sun,
30 Mar 2014, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Surely if I employ Alice, who is in Britain, I am "carrying on
>business" in Britain ?
I would expect you to at least require customers and/or suppliers to be
"carrying on a business" somewhere. And even then it seems possible to
locate yourself in Luxembourg and carry on a mail order business (across
most of Europe) from there.
--
Roland Perry
30 Mar 2014, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Surely if I employ Alice, who is in Britain, I am "carrying on
>business" in Britain ?
"carrying on a business" somewhere. And even then it seems possible to
locate yourself in Luxembourg and carry on a mail order business (across
most of Europe) from there.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
Mar 30, 2014, 9:52:24 AM3/30/14
to
In article <wpplY7Ey...@perry.co.uk>,
What a strange response. It sounds like you are trying to disagree
with me, but your example is precisely of an organisation most of
whose suppliers and customers are not in Luxembourg, but many of whose
staff are.
It seems entirely plain to me that you are "carrying on business" in a
place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
with me, but your example is precisely of an organisation most of
whose suppliers and customers are not in Luxembourg, but many of whose
staff are.
It seems entirely plain to me that you are "carrying on business" in a
place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
Roland Perry
Mar 30, 2014, 10:34:17 AM3/30/14
to
In message <WPC*MH...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:52:24 on Sun,
teleworking from home, and the company has no premises nor business
entity registered in the country.
--
Roland Perry
>It seems entirely plain to me that you are "carrying on business" in a
>place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
>customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
It doesn't seem at all plain to me, if for example the staff are only
>place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
>customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
teleworking from home, and the company has no premises nor business
entity registered in the country.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Mar 30, 2014, 10:39:14 AM3/30/14
to
> It seems entirely plain to me that you are "carrying on business" in a
> place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
> customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
That's a perceptive reading of the legislation which escaped the legal
> place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
> customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
establishment for many moons.
The term is not defined. So it's all down to case law. The only time I
had cause to look at the case law the answer would have been no. But on
checking I see that the EAT have decided to take a strained construction
(their term) of reg 19. See Pervez v Macquarie Group
Ltd [2010]. So it looks like Alice may have rights in the UK.
Of course Alice's means to enforce of any award might be an interesting
exercise if the employer has no assets in the UK.
Chris R
Mar 30, 2014, 10:39:37 AM3/30/14
to
>
>
> "Ian Jackson" wrote in message
> news:8sz*Bg...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> In article <lgplbr$vrc$1...@dont-email.me>, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I suggest the first questions to answer are (a) is the work in question
> >is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
> >business in GB[1]. If not then many questions are moot as the employee
> >won't be able to enforce rights as an Employment Tribunal won't have
> >jurisdiction (see SI 2004/1861 [2]).
>
> Surely if I employ Alice, who is in Britain, I am "carrying on
> business" in Britain ?
>
The above ignores regulation 19(1)(b) (of the The Employment Tribunals
> In article <lgplbr$vrc$1...@dont-email.me>, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I suggest the first questions to answer are (a) is the work in question
> >is carried out as an employee and (b) if so does the employer carry on
> >business in GB[1]. If not then many questions are moot as the employee
> >won't be able to enforce rights as an Employment Tribunal won't have
> >jurisdiction (see SI 2004/1861 [2]).
>
> Surely if I employ Alice, who is in Britain, I am "carrying on
> business" in Britain ?
>
(Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004), which gives
jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in England.
In any event I suspect regulation 19 is to be read as only apportioning
jurisdiction between England and Scotland. Article 19 of the 2007 Lugano
cCnvention gives jurisdiction to the courts for the place where the employee
habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he
did so, or if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work
in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which
engaged the employee is or was situated (as well as the place in which the
employer is domiciled).
Robin
Mar 30, 2014, 1:02:37 PM3/30/14
to
> In any event I suspect regulation 19 is to be read as only
> apportioning jurisdiction between England and Scotland. Article 19 of
> the 2007 Lugano cCnvention gives jurisdiction to the courts for the
> place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the
> courts for the last place where he did so, or if the employee does
> not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in
> the courts for the place where the business which engaged the
> employee is or was situated (as well as the place in which the
> employer is domiciled).
Does that apply when the action concerns a statutory right under the
> apportioning jurisdiction between England and Scotland. Article 19 of
> the 2007 Lugano cCnvention gives jurisdiction to the courts for the
> place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the
> courts for the last place where he did so, or if the employee does
> not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in
> the courts for the place where the business which engaged the
> employee is or was situated (as well as the place in which the
> employer is domiciled).
UK's national employment laws? (I'd a vague feeling that the Brussels
convention etc only applied to jurisdiction on the employment contract.
And Employment Tribunals don't seem to have followed it.)
Ian Jackson
Mar 30, 2014, 2:00:53 PM3/30/14
to
In article <lh9aa1$sjq$1...@dont-email.me>, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[Ian Jackson:]
>The term is not defined. So it's all down to case law. The only time I
>had cause to look at the case law the answer would have been no. But on
>checking I see that the EAT have decided to take a strained construction
>(their term) of reg 19. See Pervez v Macquarie Group
>Ltd [2010]. So it looks like Alice may have rights in the UK.
Thanks.
(to save others doing the search, that's:)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2010/0246_10_0812.html
| 21 ... it is necessary to hold that in the particular context of
| regulation 19 a company can "carry on business" in England and
| Wales by seconding an employee to work at an establishment here,
| even if the supply of workers to third parties is not part of
| its ordinary business. That is, I accept, a strained
| construction; but it is not an impossible one, and I believe it
| is necessary in order to give effect to the rule-maker's
| intentions.
I think this is perfectly bogglesome. It's clear from the judgement
there that according to the EAT employing people, in the course of
one's business, to work (day in day out) in a location X, doesn't
normally count as "carrying on business" in location X. It only does
so for the purposes of these particular EAT jurisdiction regulations.
I think that's absurd and completely contrary to the natural meaning
of the phrase "carrying on business".
>[Ian Jackson:]
>>It seems entirely plain to me that you are "carrying on business" in a
>>place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
>>customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
>
>That's a perceptive reading of the legislation which escaped the legal
>establishment for many moons.
*snort*
>>place where your staff are, even if those staff are all dealing with
>>customers/suppliers/whatever elsewhere.
>
>That's a perceptive reading of the legislation which escaped the legal
>establishment for many moons.
>The term is not defined. So it's all down to case law. The only time I
>had cause to look at the case law the answer would have been no. But on
>checking I see that the EAT have decided to take a strained construction
>(their term) of reg 19. See Pervez v Macquarie Group
>Ltd [2010]. So it looks like Alice may have rights in the UK.
(to save others doing the search, that's:)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2010/0246_10_0812.html
| 21 ... it is necessary to hold that in the particular context of
| regulation 19 a company can "carry on business" in England and
| Wales by seconding an employee to work at an establishment here,
| even if the supply of workers to third parties is not part of
| its ordinary business. That is, I accept, a strained
| construction; but it is not an impossible one, and I believe it
| is necessary in order to give effect to the rule-maker's
| intentions.
I think this is perfectly bogglesome. It's clear from the judgement
there that according to the EAT employing people, in the course of
one's business, to work (day in day out) in a location X, doesn't
normally count as "carrying on business" in location X. It only does
so for the purposes of these particular EAT jurisdiction regulations.
I think that's absurd and completely contrary to the natural meaning
of the phrase "carrying on business".
D.M. Procida
Apr 20, 2014, 7:34:06 AM4/20/14
to
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
> practices?
>
> How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>
> Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
> practices?
>
> How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>
> If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
> the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
> pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
Thank you very much for your replies and advice.
> the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
> pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
I now have some more salient information.
The employer's offices are in Zürich. The UK-based employee will be
expected to work remotely, with occasional visits (a couple of weeks
every three months or so - eight weeks per year in total).
The company has no offices in the UK.
The employer will provide the employee with accommodation while in
Switzerland.
According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
Zürich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
have to be made at source.
While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
taxation themselves.
Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
Daniele
tim.....
Apr 20, 2014, 7:55:25 AM4/20/14
to
news:1lkehxm.n68u7gc80qocN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
No it doesn't
Unless it can be established that the individual is self employed (which i
don't think it can) the company are strictly liable for making sure that all
the correct deductions are made - designating the employee as being self
responsible is completely illegal and isn't going to work.
And this attempt to pretend that 8 weeks in CH, whilst spending 44 weeks in
the Uk makes them Swiss employees isn't going to work either
tim
Unless it can be established that the individual is self employed (which i
don't think it can) the company are strictly liable for making sure that all
the correct deductions are made - designating the employee as being self
responsible is completely illegal and isn't going to work.
And this attempt to pretend that 8 weeks in CH, whilst spending 44 weeks in
the Uk makes them Swiss employees isn't going to work either
tim
Chris R
Apr 20, 2014, 8:19:07 AM4/20/14
to
>
>
> "D.M. Procida" wrote in message
> news:1lkehxm.n68u7gc80qocN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
>
> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
> > practices?
> >
> > How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
> >
> > If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
> > the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
> > pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>
> Thank you very much for your replies and advice.
>
> I now have some more salient information.
>
> The employer's offices are in Zürich. The UK-based employee will be
> expected to work remotely, with occasional visits (a couple of weeks
> every three months or so - eight weeks per year in total).
>
> The company has no offices in the UK.
>
> The employer will provide the employee with accommodation while in
> Switzerland.
>
> According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> Zürich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
> statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
> have to be made at source.
That will probably depend on the operation of the UK-Switzerland double tax
>
> > Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
> > practices?
> >
> > How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
> >
> > If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
> > the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
> > pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>
> Thank you very much for your replies and advice.
>
> I now have some more salient information.
>
> The employer's offices are in Zürich. The UK-based employee will be
> expected to work remotely, with occasional visits (a couple of weeks
> every three months or so - eight weeks per year in total).
>
> The company has no offices in the UK.
>
> The employer will provide the employee with accommodation while in
> Switzerland.
>
> According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> Zürich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
> statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
> have to be made at source.
treaty.
>
> While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> taxation themselves.
>
> Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
exempt them from that. However, it is by no means uncommon for an employer
taking its first steps into an overseas jurisdiction to expect that their
first employee will find out what the compliance requirements are and
implement them on the employer's behalf.
Peter Crosland
Apr 20, 2014, 8:55:57 AM4/20/14
to
On 20/04/2014 12:34, D.M. Procida wrote:
> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>> practices?
>>
>> How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>>
>> If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>> the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>> pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>
> Thank you very much for your replies and advice.
>
> I now have some more salient information.
>
> The employer's offices are in Z�rich. The UK-based employee will be
> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone here have any experience of Swiss employment law or
>> practices?
>>
>> How do they compare, broadly, to UK law and practices?
>>
>> If the employer is in Switzerland, and the employee is mostly working in
>> the UK, which laws would apply? And how are matters like Swiss/UK
>> pension contributions and so on typically dealt with?
>
> Thank you very much for your replies and advice.
>
> I now have some more salient information.
>
> expected to work remotely, with occasional visits (a couple of weeks
> every three months or so - eight weeks per year in total).
>
> The company has no offices in the UK.
>
> The employer will provide the employee with accommodation while in
> Switzerland.
>
> According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> Z�rich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
> every three months or so - eight weeks per year in total).
>
> The company has no offices in the UK.
>
> The employer will provide the employee with accommodation while in
> Switzerland.
>
> According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
> have to be made at source.
>
> While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> taxation themselves.
>
> Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
I have no idea if is a "standard" arrangement whatever that might be.
> have to be made at source.
>
> While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> taxation themselves.
>
> Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
However, it sounds highly irregular to me, or perhaps a large can of
worms would be more apposite. Th employer would seem to be trying to
avoid their responsibilities and obligations under both Swiss and UK
law. Furthermore it might be very unwise to consider working for such an
employer. I would recommend looking for a copy of ISBN 1909282634
called Living and working in Switzerland 14th edition by David
Hampshire. I only have the 9th edition.
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
Robin
Apr 20, 2014, 10:27:30 AM4/20/14
to
> Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
>
Well I wouldn't trust advice from some bloke like me on Usenet (and I
>
don't even claim to have at all the relevant tax legislation for nigh on
20 years) but with that caveat I have to say it looks OK[1].
I mentioned before that, where employer has no establishment in the UK,
the PAYE regs. provide for HMRC to require the employee to operate PAYE
(a "Direct Payment" scheme). So the bit about paying gross for the
employee to deal with deductions could well be boringly impeccable. I
suggest the employee in question sets out the facts for HMRC and asks if
they agree it is a case for a Direct Payment scheme.
As regards the deduction of tax in Switzerland, that seems to be in
accordance with Article 15 of the UK-Switzerland DTA (although Art.
15(2) is a classic of old-style drafting and I have taken wine with
luncheon so more than ever I could be wrong).
I shall again pass on NICs etc as I never did get to the end of the
trail on them which involves a lot of Directivesd (and as Switzerland is
in the EEA probably apply here). But it feels right ;)
More generally, I'd ask the employer if they (the employer) has other
employees in the UK in similar circs. who could provide lessons on how
to handle this.
[1] I am assuming no hidden little facts like non-domiciled, dual
contract etc
Robin
Apr 20, 2014, 11:33:32 AM4/20/14
to
> I shall again pass on NICs etc as I never did get to the end of the
> trail on them which involves a lot of Directivesd (and as Switzerland
> is in the EEA probably apply here). But it feels right ;)
>
On second thoughts, I vaguely recalled that this aspect (as no doubt
> trail on them which involves a lot of Directivesd (and as Switzerland
> is in the EEA probably apply here). But it feels right ;)
>
many others) of NICs in the EU has changed since my time of not fully
understanding them. And the HMRC manuals have the details. If I am
right that Switzerland that complies with the relevant EU Directives the
employee ought to ask the employer if they (the employer) have an agent
in the UK or want to appoint the employee as their agent for NICs. One
practical point with the latter is that the employer should cough for
the employer's NICs (secondary contributions) over and above the salary.
See eg http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/pommanual/paye20100.htm especially
Note 2
Stuart A. Bronstein
Apr 20, 2014, 1:15:17 PM4/20/14
to
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> The employer's offices are in Z〉ich. The UK-based employee will
someone working in the UK under the circumstances you described means
they actually do have an office there, and must comply with local
laws concerning doing business in the UK.
So, as others have said, it is not a normal type of situation. They
should not treat the employee as an employee when he is in
Switzerland, but as an independent contractor when he is in the UK.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> The employer's offices are in Z〉ich. The UK-based employee will
> be expected to work remotely, with occasional visits (a couple
> of weeks every three months or so - eight weeks per year in
> total).
>
> The company has no offices in the UK.
The employer may think it has no offices in the UK, but having
> of weeks every three months or so - eight weeks per year in
> total).
>
> The company has no offices in the UK.
someone working in the UK under the circumstances you described means
they actually do have an office there, and must comply with local
laws concerning doing business in the UK.
So, as others have said, it is not a normal type of situation. They
should not treat the employee as an employee when he is in
Switzerland, but as an independent contractor when he is in the UK.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
D.M. Procida
Apr 20, 2014, 1:17:06 PM4/20/14
to
Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As regards the deduction of tax in Switzerland, that seems to be in
> accordance with Article 15 of the UK-Switzerland DTA (although Art.
> 15(2) is a classic of old-style drafting and I have taken wine with
> luncheon so more than ever I could be wrong).
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/dtmanual/dt18164.htm says:
> As regards the deduction of tax in Switzerland, that seems to be in
> accordance with Article 15 of the UK-Switzerland DTA (although Art.
> 15(2) is a classic of old-style drafting and I have taken wine with
> luncheon so more than ever I could be wrong).
(1) Subject to the provisions of Articles 16, 18 and 19,
salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived by a
resident of a Contracting State in respect of an employment
shall be taxable only in that State unless the employment is
exercised in the other Contracting State.
If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as is
derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State.
What does *may* in that last sentence mean? That it's allowable? That it
could happen, as in "it may rain"?
Daniele
D.M. Procida
Apr 20, 2014, 1:17:05 PM4/20/14
to
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
>
> I have no idea if is a "standard" arrangement whatever that might be.
> However, it sounds highly irregular to me, or perhaps a large can of
> worms would be more apposite. Th employer would seem to be trying to
> avoid their responsibilities and obligations under both Swiss and UK
> law. Furthermore it might be very unwise to consider working for such an
> employer.
I think it's just a case of the employer doing this for the first time
> > Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
>
> I have no idea if is a "standard" arrangement whatever that might be.
> However, it sounds highly irregular to me, or perhaps a large can of
> worms would be more apposite. Th employer would seem to be trying to
> avoid their responsibilities and obligations under both Swiss and UK
> law. Furthermore it might be very unwise to consider working for such an
> employer.
rather than of any attempt to avoid responsibility.
Daniele
Stuart A. Bronstein
Apr 20, 2014, 1:26:27 PM4/20/14
to
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/dtmanual/dt18164.htm says:
>
> (1) Subject to the provisions of Articles 16, 18 and 19,
> salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived
> by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an
> employment shall be taxable only in that State unless
> the employment is exercised in the other Contracting
> State.
>
> If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as
> is derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State.
>
> What does *may* in that last sentence mean? That it's allowable?
> That it could happen, as in "it may rain"?
They're not required to tax someone, so they "may" in the sense that
> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/dtmanual/dt18164.htm says:
>
> (1) Subject to the provisions of Articles 16, 18 and 19,
> salaries, wages and other similar remuneration derived
> by a resident of a Contracting State in respect of an
> employment shall be taxable only in that State unless
> the employment is exercised in the other Contracting
> State.
>
> If the employment is so exercised, such remuneration as
> is derived therefrom may be taxed in that other State.
>
> What does *may* in that last sentence mean? That it's allowable?
> That it could happen, as in "it may rain"?
it's allowed, but not in the sense that there is no way to tell in
advance if it will.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Robin
Apr 20, 2014, 1:22:28 PM4/20/14
to
> What does *may* in that last sentence mean? That it's allowable? That
> it could happen, as in "it may rain"?
>
That it is allowed. (It is correct to use "may" rather than "shall" -
> it could happen, as in "it may rain"?
>
or the more modern "must" - because one or both States may not tax
salaries etc [fat chance I hear some say but good legislation caters for
all practicable circs.] or not salaries etc of the sort in question.)
Robin
Apr 20, 2014, 1:46:43 PM4/20/14
to
> The employer may think it has no offices in the UK, but having
> someone working in the UK under the circumstances you described means
> they actually do have an office there
Not in the UK for the purposes of the operation of PAYE. Or are you
> someone working in the UK under the circumstances you described means
> they actually do have an office there
arguing that regulations 141- 147 of the PAYE Regulations are otiose?
> So, as others have said, it is not a normal type of situation. They
> should not treat the employee as an employee when he is in
> Switzerland, but as an independent contractor when he is in the UK.
Either I've completely misunderstood your comment or I've completely
misunderstood not just PAYE but the taxation of eg dual employment
contracts, and the relevant bits of OECD model and DTAs based on it
which (as with UK-Switz) start with the position that income from
employments is taxed in the State where the employment is carried out
(ie where the employee is physically present). It then gets more
complex of course, as in the DTAS and discussed at length in the OECD
commentary (albeit which I've not read for years - so it's no doubt more
complex now). But the basics haven't changed. Another way of looking at
it is to ask what authority allows a State to recharacterise an
employment as a contractor?
Peter Crosland
Apr 21, 2014, 7:08:10 AM4/21/14
to
Swiss legal system that it is utterly inflexible and there are pitfalls
everywhere, particularly for foreigners. Working in Switzerland even
for a few days requires a work permit. I would not questions your
expertise in this field. However, I think it is a classic case of the
need for both parties to get paid for professional advice in both
countries. The Swiss have incredibly complex tax and employment
legislation and this is further complicated by the it varies in
different cantons.
Roland Perry
Apr 21, 2014, 8:00:47 AM4/21/14
to
In message <zKOdnZcdEMqGYcnO...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:08:10 on Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
sometimes for weeks at a time, without.
--
Roland Perry
12:08:10 on Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>Working in Switzerland even for a few days requires a work permit.
Employment, perhaps. I know hundreds of people who work in Switzerland,
sometimes for weeks at a time, without.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Apr 21, 2014, 8:07:44 AM4/21/14
to
> My personal, albeit limited and from many years ago, experience of the
> Swiss legal system that it is utterly inflexible and there are
> pitfalls everywhere, particularly for foreigners. Working in
> Switzerland even for a few days requires a work permit. I would not
> questions your expertise in this field. However, I think it is a
> classic case of the need for both parties to get paid for
> professional advice in both countries. The Swiss have incredibly
> complex tax and employment legislation and this is further
> complicated by the it varies in different cantons.
I was rather assuming the company knew what it was doing about the Swiss
> Swiss legal system that it is utterly inflexible and there are
> pitfalls everywhere, particularly for foreigners. Working in
> Switzerland even for a few days requires a work permit. I would not
> questions your expertise in this field. However, I think it is a
> classic case of the need for both parties to get paid for
> professional advice in both countries. The Swiss have incredibly
> complex tax and employment legislation and this is further
> complicated by the it varies in different cantons.
end - ie the work done in Switzerland - and would help on how to
register before travelling, Swiss tax returns etc. But AIUI the Swiss
still do not require a work permit for EU25 nationals employed for less
than 3 months work in a year[1]. CF Daniele's "eight weeks per year in
total".
Whether the employee needs to pay for advice in the UK depends on many
things - eg if they have time, inclination etc to read the
HMRC guidance on how to operate a Direct Payment scheme (and under RTI
on which I've never gone "hands on") and make a return and
self-assessment for such things as double taxation relief and
travelling/subsistence expenses. But there certainly used to be
plenty of people doing it without coughing for an accountant.
As regards the employer, the great known unknown seems to me to be the
risk of the company walking away if the (putative?) employee starts
telling them they need to shell out for advice on the tax and NI
intricacies of employing one person in the UK rather than taking the
line that "I do just need to check if you are content for me to start
dealing with the tax and NI issues at the UK end. I've spoken to HMRC
and they are fine for me look after tax deductions from my pay. But they
confirm you need to appoint an your agent in the UK to pays for NICs. Do
you want to appoint me or someone else?"
[1]
https://www.bfm.admin.ch//bfm/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta/meldeverfahren.html
Roland Perry
Apr 21, 2014, 8:49:06 AM4/21/14
to
In message <lj31l4$uqe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:07:44 on Mon, 21 Apr
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>AIUI the Swiss still do not require a work permit for EU25 nationals
>employed for less than 3 months work in a year[1]. CF Daniele's "eight
>weeks per year in total".
Both are a considerable advance on "even for a few days".
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>AIUI the Swiss still do not require a work permit for EU25 nationals
>employed for less than 3 months work in a year[1]. CF Daniele's "eight
>weeks per year in total".
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Apr 21, 2014, 12:52:13 PM4/21/14
to
towards EU citizens being able to work freely that should come into full
operation by 1dt June 2014. However there have been some changes along
the way and the Swiss have reserved the right to impose quotas for EU
nationals. Also it depends on the nationality of the person concerned. I
have no way of knowing what the exact status of the person being
inquired about. Furthermore there are significant penalties for the
employer if they get it wrong and the employee can even get banned from
returning to Switzerland for up to five years. Hence my continued
suggestion that both parties need to get paid for professional advice.
Roland Perry
Apr 21, 2014, 5:08:42 PM4/21/14
to
In message <n46dnWo2bKEh0cjO...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:52:13 on Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
statements such as the number of days of employment allowed without a
work permit.
--
Roland Perry
17:52:13 on Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>I have no way of knowing what the exact status of the person being
>inquired about.
That's why it's often prudent to be a little less dogmatic about
>inquired about.
statements such as the number of days of employment allowed without a
work permit.
--
Roland Perry
D.M. Procida
Apr 22, 2014, 4:43:31 AM4/22/14
to
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> Zürich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
> statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
> have to be made at source.
>
> While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> taxation themselves.
>
> Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
According to HMRC advisors apparently, this is indeed *mostly* standard.
> According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> Zürich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
> statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
> have to be made at source.
>
> While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> taxation themselves.
>
> Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
Apparently:
There is no longer a PAYE Direct Payment Scheme that applies in this
case; the employee is expected to do a self-assessment tax return.
The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
employer.
It's correct for Swiss tax to be paid on the periods of working in
Switzerland - these should then be accounted for in the self-assessment
return to avoid double taxation.
It's not correct for the Swiss employer to make social security
deductions; there is a form ("A1") that makes it OK for all these to be
paid in the UK.
Daniele
Robin
Apr 22, 2014, 1:12:46 PM4/22/14
to
> According to HMRC advisors apparently, this is indeed *mostly*
> standard.
So far so good.
> standard.
> There is no longer a PAYE Direct Payment Scheme that applies in this
> case; the employee is expected to do a self-assessment tax return.
RTI. But they may well be looking to avoid adding schemes where
possible given a PAYE scheme involves a good deal more work for HMRC and
employee over and above a tax return and self-assessment (which will
be needed in any event given the DTR etc). I've reason to believe the
employee might get a DP scheme if HMRC were pushed.
But given the extra work that'd involve it's not worth it if the
employee can cope with budgeting for the payments.
On budgeting for payments, to state the obvious, the
employee may need to watch the transition if previously used to PAYE.
Much depends of course on the individual's circs. but FWIW I recommend
at least a rough calculation of what balancing payments and payments on
account will fall due when.
Oh, the employee may need to watch the employer provides
information about any benefits in kind which are needed for
the return (or indeed for NICs). And I'd want to check with
HMRC that in the absence a PAYE scheme they won't expect a P11D etc.
> The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
> scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
> employer.
>
employer". Either way, employer ought to be v grateful.
> It's not correct for the Swiss employer to make social security
> deductions; there is a form ("A1") that makes it OK for all these to
> be paid in the UK.
>
the
Swiss joined that in club 2002). I shall go wear my trousers rolled.
Daniele Procida
Apr 23, 2014, 6:41:15 AM4/23/14
to
Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
> > scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
> > employer.
> >
> I wonder if that was a "should"="must" or "should"="saves us chasing the
> employer". Either way, employer ought to be v grateful.
Really I should have said "can" rather than "should" - I meant should,
> > The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
> > scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
> > employer.
> >
> I wonder if that was a "should"="must" or "should"="saves us chasing the
> employer". Either way, employer ought to be v grateful.
for these particular parties.
> > It's not correct for the Swiss employer to make social security
> > deductions; there is a form ("A1") that makes it OK for all these to
> > be paid in the UK.
> >
> Sorry. It was stupid of me not to check (when I would have seen that
> the
> Swiss joined that in club 2002). I shall go wear my trousers rolled.
employers, so it's clearly not obvious.
Daniele
Peter Crosland
Apr 23, 2014, 6:34:15 AM4/23/14
to
On 21/04/2014 13:07, Robin wrote:
>> My personal, albeit limited and from many years ago, experience of the
>> Swiss legal system that it is utterly inflexible and there are
>> pitfalls everywhere, particularly for foreigners. Working in
>> Switzerland even for a few days requires a work permit. I would not
>> questions your expertise in this field. However, I think it is a
>> classic case of the need for both parties to get paid for
>> professional advice in both countries. The Swiss have incredibly
>> complex tax and employment legislation and this is further
>> complicated by the it varies in different cantons.
>
> I was rather assuming the company knew what it was doing about the Swiss
> end - ie the work done in Switzerland - and would help on how to
> register before travelling, Swiss tax returns etc. But AIUI the Swiss
> still do not require a work permit for EU25 nationals employed for less
> than 3 months work in a year[1]. CF Daniele's "eight weeks per year in
> total".
This official Swiss government site should be of assistance.
>> My personal, albeit limited and from many years ago, experience of the
>> Swiss legal system that it is utterly inflexible and there are
>> pitfalls everywhere, particularly for foreigners. Working in
>> Switzerland even for a few days requires a work permit. I would not
>> questions your expertise in this field. However, I think it is a
>> classic case of the need for both parties to get paid for
>> professional advice in both countries. The Swiss have incredibly
>> complex tax and employment legislation and this is further
>> complicated by the it varies in different cantons.
>
> I was rather assuming the company knew what it was doing about the Swiss
> end - ie the work done in Switzerland - and would help on how to
> register before travelling, Swiss tax returns etc. But AIUI the Swiss
> still do not require a work permit for EU25 nationals employed for less
> than 3 months work in a year[1]. CF Daniele's "eight weeks per year in
> total".
https://www.ch.ch/en/work-switzerland-foreign-national/
In my experience of dealing with the Swiss bureaucracy they need to be
treated with considerable caution and it is wise to deal with anything
crucial in writing.
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid.
Peter Crosland
Apr 23, 2014, 1:04:27 PM4/23/14
to
acquaintance of mine today who said that the thing that often catches
foreigners out is the differences between the laws in different cantons.
He also said that some cantons were very anti foreign workers. That
might be worth considering.
--
D.M. Procida
Apr 30, 2014, 1:50:58 PM4/30/14
to
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> > Z�rich, Swiss state pension contributions, social security deductions,
> D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > According to the employer, for the periods that the employee is in
> > statutory accident insurance and sickness benefits contributions will
> > have to be made at source.
> >
> > While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> > salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> > insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> > taxation themselves.
> >
> > Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
>
> According to HMRC advisors apparently, this is indeed *mostly* standard.
>
> Apparently:
>
> There is no longer a PAYE Direct Payment Scheme that applies in this
> case; the employee is expected to do a self-assessment tax return.
>
> The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
> scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
> employer.
This actually seems quite straightforward. The foreign company will
> > have to be made at source.
> >
> > While the employee is working in the UK, they'll receive their gross
> > salary and will need to take care of making the correct national
> > insurance contributions, their own personal pension contributions and
> > taxation themselves.
> >
> > Does this seem like a fairly standard sort of arrangement?
>
> According to HMRC advisors apparently, this is indeed *mostly* standard.
>
> Apparently:
>
> There is no longer a PAYE Direct Payment Scheme that applies in this
> case; the employee is expected to do a self-assessment tax return.
>
> The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
> scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
> employer.
need however to register as an employer for the purpose of National
Insurance contributions. This can simply be done on the company's behalf
by telephone.
Then the foreign company downloads the software, "HMRC Basic PAYE Tools"
(Macintosh, Linux, Windows), which is simple to use, and will calculate
what needs to be deducted from the employee's salary, and what also
needs to be paid by the employer.
> It's correct for Swiss tax to be paid on the periods of working in
> Switzerland - these should then be accounted for in the self-assessment
> return to avoid double taxation.
>
> It's not correct for the Swiss employer to make social security
> deductions; there is a form ("A1") that makes it OK for all these to be
> paid in the UK.
information on the subject.
Additionally, it's not clear which country's occupational pension
regulations would apply.
Daniele
Robin
Apr 30, 2014, 3:29:41 PM4/30/14
to
> This actually seems quite straightforward. The foreign company will
> need however to register as an employer for the purpose of National
> Insurance contributions. This can simply be done on the company's
> behalf by telephone.
>
> Then the foreign company downloads the software, "HMRC Basic PAYE
> Tools" (Macintosh, Linux, Windows), which is simple to use, and will
> calculate what needs to be deducted from the employee's salary, and
> what also needs to be paid by the employer.
Well yes - assuming of course the Swiss company are willing to jump
> need however to register as an employer for the purpose of National
> Insurance contributions. This can simply be done on the company's
> behalf by telephone.
>
> Then the foreign company downloads the software, "HMRC Basic PAYE
> Tools" (Macintosh, Linux, Windows), which is simple to use, and will
> calculate what needs to be deducted from the employee's salary, and
> what also needs to be paid by the employer.
through those hoops using RTI software and guidance material which AIUI
is all in English (or I assume Welsh); make foreign currency payments to
HMRC; get up to speed on the differences between earnings for PAYE and
NICs, the proper treatment of expenses and benefits in kind, the end of
year returns, etc. I still think that's a poor way to start with a new
employer but of course I've no idea how much they want the employee.
>> It's not correct for the Swiss employer to make social security
>> deductions; there is a form ("A1") that makes it OK for all these to
>> be paid in the UK.
>
> I am now not sure on this last point! We have had conflicting
> information on the subject.
employer? Either way, time to get things in writing
> Additionally, it's not clear which country's occupational pension
> regulations would apply.
>
Roland Perry
May 1, 2014, 3:08:41 AM5/1/14
to
In message
<1lkxiss.1tfqjomrb1rwhN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
at 18:50:58 on Wed, 30 Apr 2014, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:
the software and the HMRC site at least once a month even if there's
nothing to pay. At the end of the year there will be further forms to
fill in, several of which are not yet online (let alone automatically
filled in online). The P11D and also class 1A NICs will be what gives
their tax accountants the biggest headache.
--
Roland Perry
<1lkxiss.1tfqjomrb1rwhN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk>,
at 18:50:58 on Wed, 30 Apr 2014, D.M. Procida
<real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> remarked:
>> The employee, on behalf of the employer, should operate an NI-only
>> scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
>> employer.
>
>This actually seems quite straightforward. The foreign company will
>need however to register as an employer for the purpose of National
>Insurance contributions. This can simply be done on the company's behalf
>by telephone.
>
>Then the foreign company downloads the software, "HMRC Basic PAYE Tools"
>(Macintosh, Linux, Windows), which is simple to use, and will calculate
>what needs to be deducted from the employee's salary, and what also
>needs to be paid by the employer.
Why did stop the explanation there? After that they need to log into
>> scheme, for the NI contributions on behalf of both employee and
>> employer.
>
>This actually seems quite straightforward. The foreign company will
>need however to register as an employer for the purpose of National
>Insurance contributions. This can simply be done on the company's behalf
>by telephone.
>
>Then the foreign company downloads the software, "HMRC Basic PAYE Tools"
>(Macintosh, Linux, Windows), which is simple to use, and will calculate
>what needs to be deducted from the employee's salary, and what also
>needs to be paid by the employer.
the software and the HMRC site at least once a month even if there's
nothing to pay. At the end of the year there will be further forms to
fill in, several of which are not yet online (let alone automatically
filled in online). The P11D and also class 1A NICs will be what gives
their tax accountants the biggest headache.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Aug 18, 2014, 4:42:34 AM8/18/14
to
I was just wondering if HMRC had finally got its act together and given
a final answer on this which the employee - and the Swiss - could live
with?
Also happy to help with other issues which may now be arising: eg I have
experience in dealing with chocolate, nutty biscuits etc brought back
from Switzerland :)
a final answer on this which the employee - and the Swiss - could live
with?
Also happy to help with other issues which may now be arising: eg I have
experience in dealing with chocolate, nutty biscuits etc brought back
from Switzerland :)
0 new messages