IR35 review to report on March 10

[DonkeyRhubarb]

interesting dont you think that organisations such as Bauer & Cottrell who by the way were involved with IR35 reforms are still going to pofit from IR35. it is just not in their interest to get IR35 abolished because they've a vested interest in keeping IR35 going along with the other organisations that feed off the contracting market.

Good point. The insurance outfits like QDOS have also prospered from IR35.

IR35 has created a nice little business opportunity for some.

I know of at least one company earning £1M/month in fees from a scheme.

[Pacciae]

IR35 has created a nice little business opportunity for some.
[/QUOTE]

Just take a look at some of the websites,for instance Bauer & Cottrells whole existance depends on IR35. Makes sence that Ms Cottrell would not wish to receommed abolishing IR35 to the OST. the OST should have hired an individual without any vested interest!?

[Fred Bloggs]

Extremely unlikely that son of IR35 won't create an even more lucrative source of business for these guys I reckon. The fact that the OTS has no idea what to do about IR35 shows what a difficult nut this will be to crack. Remember, the first priority is to raise more revenue. But in a way so that it doesn't like that's what they're doing. It is a tough nut for them to crack. I just want it left exactly the way it is. We can usually work round IR35. Son of IR35 may well be a lot more difficult.

[pastalista]

IR35 has created a nice little business opportunity for some.

Just take a look at some of the websites,for instance Bauer & Cottrells whole existance depends on IR35. Makes sence that Ms Cottrell would not wish to receommed abolishing IR35 to the OST. the OST should have hired an individual without any vested interest!?[/QUOTE]

The trouble is, almost everybody that would be able to comment sensibly on IR35 has a vested interest of some kind. PCG represents contractors - the accountancy fraternity, insurance folks and solicitors all have interests as well. The government for obvious reasons and so on.

In order for me personally to believe that this review of IR35 was carried out because it was recognised that it was a pointless law that failed to deliver the results for which it was created, then they would have to select the "clearly defined rules" on Hector's site option (or maybe the one favoured by IoD) - if they go for the NI and tax into one entity solution then it was clearly just a tax grab that has the side effect of making IR35 redundant.

It has been a long held view by me personally, and by many others as well that the effective long term aim is to ensure that all contractors are PAYE and that no other taxation method is acceptable. If they select the NI / tax option then this is a big step on that road.

Unless clients accept that rates need to effectively increase by 30 - 40% to combat the effect of this, then I can't see how contracting will continue as we currently know it. I would certainly not be willing to take all of the risks and potential hits that I do now for the much reduced income that I would receive under PAYE.

I know they haven't decided yet but being quite old, I'm a tad cynical about government motives for anything to do with tax. Or indeed anything at all.

Pastalista

[v8gaz]

The trouble is, almost everybody that would be able to comment sensibly on IR35 has a vested interest of some kind. PCG represents contractors - the accountancy fraternity, insurance folks and solicitors all have interests as well.

Yes, but only one of the above is a not-for-profit organisation set up by contractors for contractors

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Here's a crazy idea.

If every contractor joined an "85% scheme" then they might have to do something about IR35.

[Pacciae]

Just take a look at some of the websites,for instance Bauer & Cottrells whole existance depends on IR35. Makes sence that Ms Cottrell would not wish to receommed abolishing IR35 to the OST. the OST should have hired an individual without any vested interest!?

The trouble is, almost everybody that would be able to comment sensibly on IR35 has a vested interest of some kind. PCG represents contractors - the accountancy fraternity, insurance folks and solicitors all have interests as well. /QUOTE]

what is distastful is that these businesses sell you insurance which doesnt guarantee you anything and to get the insurance you need a contract reviewed which we all know means nothing oh and getting the contracts changed doesnt help either. we only hear about the very few wins on IR35 yet how many are settled without going to court? All this makes money for these companys and as said many times Ms Cotterill and the likes of PCG need IR35 or the son of IR35 to keep going as without it they would not exist

[v8gaz]

we only hear about the very few wins on IR35

That's 1485 wins for PCG and 8 losses, most of which were down to contractors representing themselves. And I know I've said it before, but PCG is a NOT FOR PROFIT organisation - nobody is getting rich in PCG

[Wanderer]

That's 1485 wins for PCG and 8 losses, most of which were down to contractors representing themselves.

I'd like to believe this is out of all cases but as Pacciae asks, is this just the ones that the PCG agreed to fight because they know they have a strong case and others were settled early (in HMRC's favour)?

[v8gaz]

This is clearly not all cases ever heard, but the ones that have been fought by PCG members. I doubt that there are many PCG members that have simply rolled over and paid - that's not why people join. PCG doesn't pick cases to fight, all members get the support they need to fight their case. That's why there are some losses, but I think you'll agree that its a pretty impressive win rate.

As for people who haven't joined PCG and have rolled over, we can't say, and strangely neither can HMRC. That's their choice, but I'm pretty sure that if they joined and followed PCG advice, there would be a similar chance of winning.