EP8128 - International employments: Part 1: arrivals in UK: Double Taxation Conventions: background/parameters

By effectively accepting, provisionally, advance claims under the Dependent Personal Service article of a Double Taxation Convention and agreeing to minimise the strict consequences of our immediate rights under that DTC and domestic legislation, we need also to ensure that by doing so the appropriate treaty partner is able to enforce its rights under the agreement.

An employer therefore wishing to reduce the administrative impact of the full operation of PAYE by advancing claims under the Dependent Personal Service article of a DTC must be prepared to supply, or cause to be supplied, sufficient information to enable HMRC to ensure domestic obligations and treaty terms are met.

Whilst some conditions may seem particularly onerous and ungenerous they are intended to do no more than establish, as far as possible that the UK does not have overall taxing rights and that DTC partner countries are aware of the employment income concerned. For this reason these factors must be an integral part of any relaxations if they are to be acceptable.

You should be looking to a working arrangement that caters for both HMRC and employer needs. It is accepted that to a degree the employer will only be able to supply certain information on a ‘best of my belief’ basis but it is to their obvious advantage to ensure accuracy.

What needs to be avoided is the provision of substantial amounts of information that serves no useful purpose. For this reason the arrangements at EPAPP4, are split into 3 bands, 1-60, 61-90 and 91-183 day visitors.

These arrangements represent a valuable saving for employers and HMRC alike. Certainly for visitors up to 60 days in the UK, substantial savings arise where an employer confirms the following

1. The individual spends less than 60 days in a tax year in the UK and
   
   

• That period does not form part of a more substantial period when the individual was present in the UK and
• The individual does not have a formal contract of employment with a UK company

(this follows DT1922)

2. Where liability is subsequently found to arise the employer agrees to pay all tax grossed up unless arrangements are made by the employer to recover the tax from the employee
   
   

Then, for intermittent visitors, for up to 30 days, no statements will be required from either employer or employee. Where however the visit is for a period of 30 days or more some information will be required.

A blanket statement from the employer, covering points at (a) and (b) above, will suffice. But if it is to cover both continuous and intermittent visitors, certain other details will be required for employees on a continuous visit of 30 days or more. See EPAPP4.

In considering whether PAYE relaxations can be made, you should work within the following parameters, tailored as necessary to the particular needs of the case.

The procedures at (a) and (b) above apply to specific secondments and regular visitors. For casual / intermittent visitors the appropriate procedures should be applied as each stage is reached. Confirmation from the employee, employee agent, employer will normally be sufficient. In determining whether remuneration is borne by a concern in the UK, reference should be made to DT1920. It may be possible to accept a statement from the employer - not the agent - that earnings relating to certain categories of employees, for example, casual visitors, certain trainees, certain secondees etc will not in any circumstances have their remuneration borne by the UK branch or other UK concern. (It may be that part of the earnings, particularly benefits, are paid and borne in the UK. This part will be taxable in the UK in the normal way.)

Any statement covering a number of employees should specify their duties in the UK, for example training, job exchanges and specific project work. A report should be sent to the CT office in order that when the UK accounts are submitted it can be verified that the earnings covered by the statement have not ultimately been borne by a UK entity either directly or by re-charge.