RTE Presenters as 'Contractors'. Really?

Expunge

It has come up before that maybe the millionaire RTE presenters we hear about with their companies supplying RTE as contractors may not, in fact, meet the Revenue criteria. In the light of the publication of another set of mostly outrageous 'fees' for very ordinary talent, I had a look at Revenue.ie definition of an employee.... Think of Joe, Ryan or Ray with these criteria....

He/she is an employee if some or all of the following apply:

Is under the control of another person who directs as to how, when and where the work is to be carried out: Yes
Works set hours or a given number of hours per week or month: Yep
Does not supply materials for the job: No
Does not provide equipment other than the small tools of the trade: Their unbelievableTalent
Is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work: Ha!
Receives a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage: Maybe. We won't know for 2 years
Is entitled to extra pay or time off for overtime: That's a no, I think.
Is entitled to sick pay: No. Gerry Ryan (RIP) gave out about that one.
Receives expense payments to cover subsistence and/or travel expenses: It's hard to see any of RTE's big stars settling the hotel bill themselves while they're on the job. Could be wrong
Supplies labour only: Yes.
Cannot subcontact the work: Don't think Damien or PBH are subbies
Does not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business: Not officially anyway - except getting the Nuacht moved behind the scenes.
Will normally be covered under the employer’s public liability insurance: Probably
Works for one person or for one business: Yep. Don't hear Tubbs on Sunshine 106.8 much.

Judging by that list is there not a good argument that Marian, Tubbs, Ray and Joe Duffy are not, in fact 'contractors'?

afatbollix

Tubbs works for BBC all the time.

They can afford some good tax accountants.

stoplooklisten

Of course they're not contractors, they are full time rte employees.

The may do a few nixers here and there but their bread and butter is rte.

Expunge

How does Revenue tolerate it so. Is there a parallel situation in the independent sector?

barneystinson

Expunge wrote: »

It has come up before that maybe the millionaire RTE presenters we hear about with their companies supplying RTE as contractors may not, in fact, meet the Revenue criteria. In the light of the publication of another set of mostly outrageous 'fees' for very ordinary talent, I had a look at Revenue.ie definition of an employee.... Think of Joe, Ryan or Ray with these criteria....

He/she is an employee if some or all of the following apply:

Is under the control of another person who directs as to how, when and where the work is to be carried out: Yes
Works set hours or a given number of hours per week or month: Yep
Does not supply materials for the job: No
Does not provide equipment other than the small tools of the trade: Their unbelievableTalent
Is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work: Ha!
Receives a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage: Maybe. We won't know for 2 years
Is entitled to extra pay or time off for overtime: That's a no, I think.
Is entitled to sick pay: No. Gerry Ryan (RIP) gave out about that one.
Receives expense payments to cover subsistence and/or travel expenses: It's hard to see any of RTE's big stars settling the hotel bill themselves while they're on the job. Could be wrong
Supplies labour only: Yes.
Cannot subcontact the work: Don't think Damien or PBH are subbies
Does not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business: Not officially anyway - except getting the Nuacht moved behind the scenes.
Will normally be covered under the employer’s public liability insurance: Probably
Works for one person or for one business: Yep. Don't hear Tubbs on Sunshine 106.8 much.

Judging by that list is there not a good argument that Marian, Tubbs, Ray and Joe Duffy are not, in fact 'contractors'?

The critical point that you are missing is the insertion of Tubbs Ltd, Marian Ltd, Joe Ltd and Ray Ltd into the equation.

RTE contracts with those limited companies in order to acquire the services of the specified individuals. You cannot simply ignore the existence of those companies, or the perfectly valid and legal contractual relationships that exist.

PeterTheEighth

afatbollix wrote: »

Tubbs works for BBC all the time. They can afford some good tax accountants.

And remember, RTE allows Tubridy and Duffy to cash in their celebrities by "authoring" books so this is another part of their earnings. And I'm sure they get appearance fees for openings, speeches etc etc.

One of my big bugbears is that Duffy uses the tools of his show to promote his own book, which simply should not be allowed. He uses the Liveline show and the Twitter page for the show particularly as promotional tools for his private enterprises, and nobody in RTE has the balls to pull him up on it.

stoplooklisten

Expunge wrote: »

How does Revenue tolerate it so. Is there a parallel situation in the independent sector?

If you have a good enough accountant you can do enough loops and make it acceptable to them. As Barney says above, it's all about the Ltd.

Royale with Cheese

What's the issue here exactly? This is the same many industries, I contract in IT. I would say Revenue are quite happy with the arrangement, I haemorrhage money through tax.

Taxburden carrier

stoplooklisten wrote: »

If you have a good enough accountant you can do enough loops and make it acceptable to them. As Barney says above, it's all about the Ltd.

And boy are they limited !

barneystinson

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

What's the issue here exactly? This is the same many industries, I contract in IT. I haemorrhage money through tax.

You mean, you pay income tax on your income?! The horror

stoplooklisten

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

What's the issue here exactly? This is the same many industries, I contract in IT. I would say Revenue are quite happy with the arrangement, I haemorrhage money through tax.

Why are RTE opting for contractors though? Why not full time employees?

Chasing the talent? :pac:

Royale with Cheese

Maybe they can't afford to pay into Tubb's pension fund.

Victor

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Why are RTE opting for contractors though?

As a quid pro quo for the licence fee, they are obliged to give a certain amount of work to independent production companies.

So, if Dave Fanning goes to London to interview someone, it's Dave Fanning's sound operator (or a London sound operator) doing the recording, not an RTÉ sound operator.

Expunge

As a quid pro quo for the licence fee, they are obliged to give a certain amount of work to independent production companies.

So, if Dave Fanning goes to London to interview someone, it's Dave Fanning's sound operator (or a London sound operator) doing the recording, not an RTÉ sound operator

.

That's just not true. There is no way that Claddagh Green Ltd could be classed as a broadcasting production company. It may be the supplier of, ahem, talent to the highest bidder, but a company which bids for and produces a broadcastable programme? No

As for Fanning going to London to do an interview. He will use a long standing EBU arrangement with the BBC (or any other EBU member) to use their facilities at no cost to either RTE or the LTD company,

DublinWriter

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

What's the issue here exactly? This is the same many industries, I contract in IT.

Is it true that most companies don't keep IT contractors for more than two years as they legally become employees after that time, with all the attendant benefits?

Most IT agencies traditionally didn't touch contractors unless they operate through their own Ltd. companies, but I think that legally doesn't give the agency or the agencies' client a leg to stand on. I'm not sure the case law has even been tested on this yet.

PeterTheEighth

I think what is most frustrating about this whole contractor relationship that RTE has with it's stars, is that RTE never seem to get any of the advantages that having such a relationship should bring for them (as the employers).

Marian Finucane should have been let go the last time her contract was up. She splutters her way through the show, and does little to no research judging by the amount of mistakes she makes. But what do RTE do? Give her a pay increase. Unbelievable.

The one contractor that RTE really needs is somebody that can play hardball with "stars" agents such as Noel Kelly. So that when Noel Kelly dances in the door proclaiming that Tubridy "is the best presenter in Ireland", they can take out the VCR and show him a few examples of exactly how bad Tubridy is. Show him the clip with Jonah Hill for example.

barneystinson

DublinWriter wrote: »

Is it true that most companies don't keep IT contractors for more than two years as they legally become employees after that time, with all the attendant benefits?

Most IT agencies traditionally didn't touch contractors unless they operate through their own Ltd. companies, but I think that legally doesn't give the agency or the agencies' client a leg to stand on. I'm not sure the case law has even been tested on this yet.

In applying tax law, the legal form will normally take precedence over substance. So if your legal structure is a contract between a company and a customer, for the provision of services (eg of a named individual), then it is very difficult to look through the existence of that contract and that company.

The 2 years is an issue in the UK but over there they have specifically tried to introduce legislation to tackle the issue of disguised employment (IR35) and have found it very difficult going.

Hence when Irish revenue started examining the contractor sector in Ireland in 2013 they specifically said they weren't challenging the (non-) employment status of the contractors, because no doubt the legal opinion was that it's not a winnable argument.