PDA

View Full Version : End of the road



tarbera
28th August 2015, 09:46
Forward to you contractors friends

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/end-of-the-road

DimPrawn
28th August 2015, 09:50
Thus proving the Conservative governments are far more effective than Labour ones.

Blairs govt tried it's damnest to wipe out UK IT contractors with IR35, Fast Track Visa work permits and such measures.

We all survived.

Tories take five minutes to do the job properly.

unixman
28th August 2015, 09:55
"Oh no! Gosh I better join IPSE as soon as possible, do their survey and encourage all my friends to join IPSE too!!!"

tarbera
28th August 2015, 09:57
"Oh no! Gosh I better join IPSE as soon as possible, do their survey and encourage all my friends to join IPSE too!!!"

Alternatively join eek's 1 man army !!

DimPrawn
28th August 2015, 09:58
"Oh no! Gosh I better join IPSE as soon as possible, do their survey and encourage all my friends to join IPSE too!!!"

http://www.dotjedons.org/TV-persoonlijkheden/dipsy.gif

They will save us all! Tories are listening hard to us, they care about "small business". That's how they see us isn't it?

:rolleyes:

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 10:03
"Oh no! Gosh I better join IPSE as soon as possible, do their survey and encourage all my friends to join IPSE too!!!"

Don't forget IPSEMGM0004 ;)

eek
28th August 2015, 10:08
Alternatively join eek's 1 man army !!

That would be multiple leaders, various umbrella firms, 3 firms of contracting accountants (I haven't asked the others), various recruitment agencies and multiple other people (including unions and low pay campaigners)..

Given that all I wanted to do was get some figures and then pass those figures on for others to use, its slightly snowballed..

But given the cynical nature of most of the IPSE people I have had the misfortune to witness, who still believe that they are being attacked when we are really collateral damage I do believe I had to do something..

But if the best you lot can come up with is cheap jokes and insults (and I've now had those from every CC member who posts here except TF, MS and Coconut) you better hope that the document the CC members will first see on the 26th actually represents a coherent viewpoint. Ours will be on public view as we write it and we will listen to opinions...

Oh I note that the post has now been deleted. Too late mate I'm going to keep that here for posterity ...

cojak
28th August 2015, 10:10
That would be 5 leaders, various umbrella firms, 3 firms of contracting accountants (I haven't asked the others), various recruitment agencies and multiple other people (including unions and low pay campaigners)..

Given that all I wanted to do was get some figures and then pass those figures on for others to use, its slightly snowballed..

But given the cynical nature of most of the IPSE people I have had the misfortune to witness, who still believe that they are being attacked when we are really collateral damage I do believe I had to do something..

But if the best you lot can come up with is cheap jokes go ahead....

I moved this from General, I'm sure that Tarbs wouldn't have broken forum rules. :)

darmstadt
28th August 2015, 10:13
The proposal specifically excludes “large consultancies” or businesses based outside the UK so, in IPSE’s view, this would mean that your business would be operating at a competitive disadvantage to big consultancies such as Accenture or contractors based in other EU countries.

That's me sorted :happy, its a pity that the rates in the UK are so shit though :ohwell However, there's your answer...

eek
28th August 2015, 10:15
I moved this from General, I'm sure that Tarbs wouldn't have broken forum rules. :)

Even in general that wasn't fair game. I wouldn't be devoting spare time I would happily be doing other things with unless I felt I absolutely had to... And given the comments regarding IPSE that I've heard from outsiders they really do have problems...

And that was before the FLC fiasco...

ASB
28th August 2015, 10:22
I am probably a heretic but......

When I was contractint it always sruck me as odd that expenses in travelling to my job were claimable. I didnt complain of course.

These were fundamentally different to expenses whilst on the job.

People wohld go on about how permies chose where to live, chose where to work etc. But the fact is so do contractors. They still choose to work the other end of the country sometime.

There is no reason for it to be any different. Contractor, permie or large consultancy should all be the same.

The expense of getting to/fom assignment/job to yield a fee/salary is fundamentally the same a thing for everybody, however their labour is charged.

I happen to believe i should be a chargeable expense for all to encourage mobility. But that is about as likely as me waking up pope.

yakitoo
28th August 2015, 10:23
Forward to you contractors friends

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/end-of-the-road

How many links from there before it morphs into the FLC battlefield?

yakitoo
28th August 2015, 10:27
The expense of getting to/fom assignment/job to yield a fee/salary is fundamentally the same a thing for everybody, however their labour is charged.



That is not too much of a problem for me (more a PITA), it's the loss of overnight accommodation costs that really stings. Permies get those costs paid with no argument.

eek
28th August 2015, 10:30
That is not too much of a problem for me (more a PITA), it's the loss of overnight accommodation costs that really stings. Permies get those costs paid with no argument.

I need to dig up the figures but the average permie has a daily commute of 12 miles or so. The average contractor is nearer 80...

Yes there are flaws in those figures. I will leave HMRC to try and pick them up...

Pondlife
28th August 2015, 10:37
(and I've now had those from every CC member who posts here except TF, MS and Coconut)

:eek

I feel quite hard done by with this accusation.

Cockwomble. There you go. :D

eek
28th August 2015, 10:38
:eek

I feel quite hard done by with this accusation.

Cockwomble. There you go. :D

Didn't know you were a member as well. Hey ho...

yakitoo
28th August 2015, 10:38
I need to dig up the figures but the average permie has a daily commute of 12 miles or so. The average contractor is nearer 80...

Yes there are flaws in those figures. I will leave HMRC to try and pick them up...

That sounds about right. Mine is usually > 80 (2 hours) each way so overnight stays are a requirement if I need to do the hours at each end of the day.

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 10:38
:eek

I feel quite hard done by with this accusation.

Cockwomble. There you go. :D

:laugh

tarbera
28th August 2015, 10:39
That would be multiple leaders, various umbrella firms, 3 firms of contracting accountants (I haven't asked the others), various recruitment agencies and multiple other people (including unions and low pay campaigners)..

Given that all I wanted to do was get some figures and then pass those figures on for others to use, its slightly snowballed..

But given the cynical nature of most of the IPSE people I have had the misfortune to witness, who still believe that they are being attacked when we are really collateral damage I do believe I had to do something..

But if the best you lot can come up with is cheap jokes and insults (and I've now had those from every CC member who posts here except TF, MS and Coconut) you better hope that the document the CC members will first see on the 26th actually represents a coherent viewpoint. Ours will be on public view as we write it and we will listen to opinions...

Oh I note that the post has now been deleted. Too late mate I'm going to keep that here for posterity ...

Hang on, that was not an insult - not by a long way sir - I was encouraging people to join the eek party

Deleted what post ?

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 10:41
But if the best you lot can come up with is cheap jokes and insults (and I've now had those from every CC member who posts here except TF, MS and Coconut) you better hope that the document the CC members will first see on the 26th actually represents a coherent viewpoint. Ours will be on public view as we write it and we will listen to opinions...


To be fair, you've been known to have couple of digs at IPSE. :)

I think the purpose of the leaflet is to raise awareness amongst the majority of contractors who are probably blissfully unaware of the impending doom. That can only be a good thing, and IPSE have the resources and budget to do this. I don't care if people respond through IPSE, eek+chums or independently, but making them aware in the first place is half the battle, and a good spend of members' money IMO.

cojak
28th August 2015, 10:41
Hang on, that was not an insult - not by a long way sir - I was encouraging people you join the eek party

Deleted what post ?

Yes, I think that you may be a little too sensitive about this eek.

pr1
28th August 2015, 10:44
Yes, I think that you may be a little too sensitive about this eek.

a lottle, imo

ASB
28th August 2015, 10:44
That is not too much of a problem for me (more a PITA), it's the loss of overnight accommodation costs that really stings. Permies get those costs paid with no argument.

If my employer as a permies send my to Aberdeen - part of the job not getting to/from then claimable.

if I chose to take a job in Aberdeen and stayed away then not claimable.

I dont really see any reasons why it should be different for anybody.

pr1
28th August 2015, 10:45
If my employer as a permies send my to Aberdeen - part of the job not getting to/from then claimable.

if I chose to take a job in Aberdeen and stayed away then not claimable.

I dont really see any reasons why it should be different for anybody.

because BigCo's help to write the legislation, not LittleCo's :(

tarbera
28th August 2015, 10:48
To be fair, you've been known to have couple of digs at IPSE. :)

I think the purpose of the leaflet is to raise awareness amongst the majority of contractors who are probably blissfully unaware of the impending doom. That can only be a good thing, and IPSE have the resources and budget to do this. I don't care if people respond through IPSE, eek+chums or independently, but making them aware in the first place is half the battle, and a good spend of members' money IMO.

We need a better name than 'eek and chums'

Any suggestions ?

eek
28th August 2015, 10:50
Yes, I think that you may be a little too sensitive about this eek.

Sorry but a 1 man army is an insult.... It implies either a fool's errand or something no one else is supporting...

Yes I might be being sensitive, I also might not like looking at the 100 or so hours I'm going to lose over the next month thinking I really don't want to do this but needs must...

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 10:52
We need a better name than 'eek and chums'

Any suggestions ?

Dunno, maybe he can come up with something latin that doesn't quite fit. ;)

eek
28th August 2015, 10:54
We need a better name than 'eek and chums'

Any suggestions ?

thefutureofcontracting.co.uk ... its an available domain and avoids anything too close to pcg / ipse ......

We don't need anything for long. Just long enough to support the writing of the T&S consultation response, the IR35 discussion response and any response to the IR35 consultation that may follow.

dynamicsaxcontractor
28th August 2015, 10:55
If it wasn't for the stupid idea of the FLC I might have shared the document, but as it stands now IPSE needs to be sorted as well. My membership runs out in 6 months and unless they get their act together there is no way I renew.

eek has done more for me then IPSE ever done!

yakitoo
28th August 2015, 10:56
if I chose to take a job in Aberdeen and stayed away then not claimable.

I dont really see any reasons why it should be different for anybody.

Permie would look to buy or long term lease (if they have any sense). Not really much of an option on 3-6 month gigs.

TheFaQQer
28th August 2015, 10:57
If my employer as a permies send my to Aberdeen - part of the job not getting to/from then claimable.

if I chose to take a job in Aberdeen and stayed away then not claimable.

I dont really see any reasons why it should be different for anybody.

What permie job is only ever expected to last three months?

dynamicsaxcontractor
28th August 2015, 10:58
Permie would look to buy or long term lease (if they have any sense). Not really much of an option on 3-6 month gigs.

It would be great moving every 3-6 months having the kids changing school 2-4 times a year. Could we expect the end clients to pay relocation and to sort out schools etc for us?

Edit: And of course, I take it the schools will adapt for my kids to move out from one school and in to another in the period I have found out my current gig ends and my new one starts.

tarbera
28th August 2015, 11:07
If it wasn't for the stupid idea of the FLC I might have shared the document, but as it stands now IPSE needs to be sorted as well. My membership runs out in 6 months and unless they get their act together there is no way I renew.

eek has done more for me then IPSE ever done!

FLC is a sideshow a non event for most

T&S rule changes (plus div tax + ir35 changes) will end our sector - but 90% of contractors won't be aware

eek
28th August 2015, 11:08
FLC is a sideshow a non event for most

T&S rule changes (plus div tax + ir35 changes) will end our sector - but 90% of contractors won't be aware

Yep but its a sideshow that has lost everyone 2 weeks.... And that is a very damaging side show...

tarbera
28th August 2015, 11:11
Sorry but a 1 man army is an insult.... It implies either a fool's errand or something no one else is supporting...

Yes I might be being sensitive, I also might not like looking at the 100 or so hours I'm going to lose over the next month thinking I really don't want to do this but needs must...

You think

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Man_Army

eek
28th August 2015, 11:11
What permie job is only ever expected to last three months?

A fixed term contract. Think we may see a lot of those from April 2017...

pr1
28th August 2015, 11:12
How many links from there before it morphs into the FLC battlefield?


If it wasn't for the stupid idea of the FLC I might have shared the document, but as it stands now IPSE needs to be sorted as well. My membership runs out in 6 months and unless they get their act together there is no way I renew.

eek has done more for me then IPSE ever done!

17

eek
28th August 2015, 11:12
You think

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Man_Army

I'll take it back then. Just not looking forward to the amount of work I've committed myself to..

TheFaQQer
28th August 2015, 11:13
If it wasn't for the stupid idea of the FLC I might have shared the document

I think that's a very short-sighted view, particularly since the leaflet doesn't refer to the FLC at all.

Many contractors aren't aware of this. Many of those that are aware are oblivious to the seriousness of the consultation and the implications of it. For example, a guy I used to work with had seen mention of the consultation in contractor news articles and newsletters but thought nothing of it. It was only when I sent an email to the contractors in my address book outlining the implications of the consultation that he woke up to the problem and has responded to the consultation as well as writing to his MP to raise his concerns.

If the worst case scenario comes to pass, how many of your friends and colleagues will thank you for saying "yeah, I had a leaflet about it that would have summed up the issue for you, but because I didn't like where it came from I decided not to make you aware of the approaching storm"?

dynamicsaxcontractor
28th August 2015, 11:14
FLC is a sideshow a non event for most

T&S rule changes (plus div tax + ir35 changes) will end our sector - but 90% of contractors won't be aware

The idea of the FLC is a bad one from the start. But to discuss it now when we are under attack is utterly stupid. It's like if enemy troops are sitting on boats off shore ready to attack and instead of us all trying to fight them off spend the time discussing if we should offer them tea or coffee.

pr1
28th August 2015, 11:14
If it wasn't for the stupid idea of the FLC I might have shared the document

yeah, that'll show IPSE!

teapot418
28th August 2015, 11:27
Are people planning to respond to the consultation(s) as individuals too? Or are we better to let the pros deal with this - quality, quantity or both?

teapot418
28th August 2015, 11:30
re: FLC nonsense. I've responded to the survey, said I "strongly disagree" with the concept and trust that if the majority of members do the same, it won't go any further.

eek
28th August 2015, 11:31
Are people planning to respond to the consultation(s) as individuals too? Or are we better to let the pros deal with this - quality, quantity or both?

I think the more individual responses the better. but having read how responses have been misused in the past keep them short, unambiguous and to the point..

The above is one reason why I want mine in public view. So that it cannot be abused...

booglehoop
28th August 2015, 11:32
Are people planning to respond to the consultation(s) as individuals too? Or are we better to let the pros deal with this - quality, quantity or both?

I've already responded to both T&S and IR35 consulations and written to my MP twice.

The 'pros' will deal with this as well with a coordinated industry response, but IMHO I think making as much noise as possible as individuals is a good idea by highlighting how/why the proposals will damage your business and how they will not meet policy objectives.

DaveB
28th August 2015, 11:32
Forward to you contractors friends

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/end-of-the-road

It would be helpful if there were links to the actual survey on the page.


You can help us do this by responding to us via this page on our website and completing our Policy survey here.

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 11:37
It would be helpful if there were links to the actual survey on the page.

It has been raised...

DaveB
28th August 2015, 12:01
It has been raised...

I have to say their tech guys haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently. First they lost all the email survey results, now it looks like they can't get a simple web page right.

It doesn't inspire confidence.

dynamicsaxcontractor
28th August 2015, 12:07
I have to say their tech guys haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently. First they lost all the email survey results, now it looks like they can't get a simple web page right.

It doesn't inspire confidence.

Maybe they should hire a couple of contractors to sort it before its too late......

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 12:12
But if the best you lot can come up with is cheap jokes and insults (and I've now had those from every CC member who posts here except TF, MS and Coconut)...

So really just the one CC member then? (And he's short tempered with everyone!)

TestMangler
28th August 2015, 12:19
thefutureofcontracting.co.uk ... its an available domain and avoids anything too close to pcg / ipse ......

We don't need anything for long. Just long enough to support the writing of the T&S consultation response, the IR35 discussion response and any response to the IR35 consultation that may follow.

Happy to provide hosting FOC.

eek
28th August 2015, 12:33
Happy to provide hosting FOC.

Thank you. I forked out £7 as it was less hassle to take namecheap up on their cpanel deal than it was for me to configure another wordpress installation on my own server..

Hopefully what I have will be enough, if not I will be in touch...

WordIsBond
28th August 2015, 13:39
Happy to provide hosting FOC.
Wow. The one man army just doubled in size. If that happens every day, by the end of the consultation they'll rule the world.

The "one man army" thing didn't strike me as insulting eek at all. I, on the other hand, having put together a contribution for his response, was deeply wounded. The psychological trauma of being told I don't count left me permanently scarred.

For me, it's the End of the Road.

mudskipper
28th August 2015, 15:05
It would be helpful if there were links to the actual survey on the page.

It appears to be fixed.

ZARDOZ
28th August 2015, 19:24
...

yakitoo
28th August 2015, 23:10
It appears to be fixed.

Up to the point where it asks you to login, or am I missing something?

mudskipper
29th August 2015, 06:01
Up to the point where it asks you to login, or am I missing something?

:facepalm:

mudskipper
29th August 2015, 06:24
The leaflet says 'if you are a member...' so I guess it is intended to be member only content. The landing page could be clearer though.

yakitoo
29th August 2015, 07:47
The leaflet says 'if you are a member...' so I guess it is intended to be member only content.

Not seen the leaflet just followed the link in the previous post


The landing page could be clearer though.

And the page describing the survey

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/take-part-our-policy-survey

TheCoconutDog
29th August 2015, 08:14
Up to the point where it asks you to login, or am I missing something?

The policy review is a member survey. The travel and subsistence consultation is open to all. See https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/travel-and-subsistence-relief-consultation-–-we-want-hear-you

Contreras
29th August 2015, 08:21
Up to the point where it asks you to login, or am I missing something?

Yes they fixed that too.


:facepalm:

Some of us were able to complete the survey before it was made members only.

:facepalm: indeed.

mudskipper
29th August 2015, 20:14
I've already responded to both T&S and IR35 consulations and written to my MP twice.

The 'pros' will deal with this as well with a coordinated industry response, but IMHO I think making as much noise as possible as individuals is a good idea by highlighting how/why the proposals will damage your business and how they will not meet policy objectives.

I've drafted mine today (for T&S). I think the main thing people need to do is focus on the questions on page 18 (repeated on 23). They've specifically said they're not looking for alternative proposals for this one (p29)

The main points I've tried to make within those parameters are

1) Unfair tax advantage to consultancies
2) A different set of tests to IR35 not helpful - adds to complexity, doesn't resolve.
3) Getting client to decide is not going to work - what client is going to say you're never going to be under SDC?

Basically, if they're going ahead with this (and they are) it seems wrong to me to preempt the IR35 reforms. If they must, then make it IR35 caught = no T&S, and leave the detail of SDC / client responsibility / liability to the IR35 discussion.

eek
29th August 2015, 20:26
I've drafted mine today (for T&S). I think the main thing people need to do is focus on the questions on page 18 (repeated on 23). They've specifically said they're not looking for alternative proposals for this one (p29)

The main points I've tried to make within those parameters are

1) Unfair tax advantage to consultancies
2) A different set of tests to IR35 not helpful - adds to complexity, doesn't resolve.
3) Getting client to decide is not going to work - what client is going to say you're never going to be under SDC?

Basically, if they're going ahead with this (and they are) it seems wrong to me to preempt the IR35 reforms. If they must, then make it IR35 caught = no T&S, and leave the detail of SDC / client responsibility / liability to the IR35 discussion.

Is 3 relevant to the T&S consultation... That feature creep comes in the IR35 discussion

But you are correct it makes little sense for this to go first as if the chief target of this is the low paid. The T&S changes reduce their income but don't do anything else while there is the chance the IR35 changes will move them back to PAYE status with the benefits of being employees...

mudskipper
29th August 2015, 20:34
Is 3 relevant to the T&S consultation... That feature creep comes in the IR35 discussion

But you are correct it makes little sense for this to go first as if the chief target of this is the low paid. The T&S changes reduce their income but don't do anything else while there is the chance the IR35 changes will move them back to PAYE status with the benefits of being employees...

No, it's in this document too. It's the option 1 or 2 that's discussed in the questions (p16/17) Both options start with "It will be the engager’s responsibility to confirm with the employment
intermediary whether the contracted worker will be under the right of supervision, direction or control, to allow for the appropriate tax relief to be available." The difference in the options is then about who is responsible for the tax in what circumstances.

My real fear about this (apart from actually losing T&S) is that if this is accepted as is, then it's a logical step to make IR35 follow these rules, rather than vice versa.

eek
29th August 2015, 20:59
No, it's in this document too. It's the option 1 or 2 that's discussed in the questions (p16/17) Both options start with "It will be the engager’s responsibility to confirm with the employment
intermediary whether the contracted worker will be under the right of supervision, direction or control, to allow for the appropriate tax relief to be available." The difference in the options is then about who is responsible for the tax in what circumstances.

My real fear about this (apart from actually losing T&S) is that if this is accepted as is, then it's a logical step to make IR35 follow these rules, rather than vice versa.

You need to read the second bit of option 1...


If HMRC identifies that the rules for travel and subsistence tax reliefs
have not been applied compliantly, and that inappropriate or false claims have
been made, the engager for whom the worker provides their personal services,
will be jointly and severally liable to HMRC for any outstanding obligations.

So if under SD&C you may not necessarily lose all your T&S you are just subject to the rules employees have to follow.. The ideal scenario here for the end client is to turn round and say that we aren't subject to SD&C..

Which is fine provide the Agency regulations continue to exclude PSCs because the Agency regulation changes automatically place umbrella workers inside SD&C and were that extended to PSCs we will lose our expenses.

The problem here is that the unions are correct. The invisible umbrella companies who currently provide payroll for the low paid care worker will just become invisible Accountants for the same low paid worker....

mudskipper
29th August 2015, 21:35
You need to read the second bit of option 1...



So if under SD&C you may not necessarily lose all your T&S you are just subject to the rules employees have to follow.. The ideal scenario here for the end client is to turn round and say that we aren't subject to SD&C..

Which is fine provide the Agency regulations continue to exclude PSCs because the Agency regulation changes automatically place umbrella workers inside SD&C and were that extended to PSCs we will lose our expenses.

The problem here is that the unions are correct. The invisible umbrella companies who currently provide payroll for the low paid care worker will just become invisible Accountants for the same low paid worker....

Which brings us back to my point 3 - getting the client to say you're outside SDC is unrealistic IMO.


So if under SD&C you may not necessarily lose all your T&S you are just subject to the rules employees have to follow..

I think that was always clear. Working at one main place, but being sent hither and tither (my ClientB scenario) is OK. I think this is covered on p8 by 'permanent workplace'.

Where it gets murky, is the consultancy scenario, where bigCo sends Janet Bloggs to work on client site for 6 months and get tax relief on expenses. YourCo, sending eek, does not.

suityou01
30th August 2015, 08:48
Sorry chaps, need some help with the acronyms again.

Can you help? Might make the thread more readable.

CC=?
FLC=?

TheCoconutDog
30th August 2015, 08:52
Sorry chaps, need some help with the acronyms again.

Can you help? Might make the thread more readable.

CC=?
FLC=?

CC = IPSE Consultative Council
FLC = Feelancer Limited Company

ASB
30th August 2015, 09:17
The ideal scenario here for the end client is to turn round and say that we aren't subject to SD&C..

Surely not? The joint liability then places the engager directly on the hook for tax liabilities if that declaration is found in any way lacking.

It is far from om ideal for the engager to ever say qnything other tha it is sdc.

eek
30th August 2015, 09:27
Surely not? The joint liability then places the engager directly on the hook for tax liabilities if that declaration is found in any way lacking.

It is far from om ideal for the engager to ever say qnything other tha it is sdc.

You need to read the details of the proposal.

Option 1 does not within itself give HMRC the right to decide if SDorC should be applied or not. It only checks that the travel rules have been applied or not...

Except for that option 1 and option 2 are identical. My dislike of option 2 is that no intermediary is going to take any risk and will automatically decide - no expenses allowed...

ASB
30th August 2015, 10:20
You need to read the details of the proposal.

Option 1 does not within itself give HMRC the right to decide if SDorC should be applied or not. It only checks that the travel rules have been applied or not...

Except for that option 1 and option 2 are identical. My dislike of option 2 is that no intermediary is going to take any risk and will automatically decide - no expenses allowed...

Perhaps I am missing something. According to your quote just above the bit I quoted in the event that it is, however, decided that sdc applied then the financial consequences of that fall on the engager (joint and several so they might not actually land there but an engager is an easy target).

As an engager, and with some idea of what could be argued to be sdc, then there are no circumstances in which I would say "no sdc".

The practical effect is that all engagers will surely say "sdc" otherwise there is significant risk of becoming financially liable for parties future actions.

suityou01
30th August 2015, 13:59
Following all this stuff is quite a mind bender.

I have a question regarding travel and subsistence. Should I give a fig? If after the new regs I cannot claim it then I with either wfh, or work commutably. If a client really wants me that bad and they are not commutable then it's their problem, and they have to foot the costs, and I just say "blame the goverment". I also have less paperwork. Epic win?

If I am right about this, then the bigger problem is to do with being IR35 caught because you use an agency. So the answer there is to go direct. So again, what's the problem?

Or did I miss something? :happy

eek
30th August 2015, 14:06
Following all this stuff is quite a mind bender.

I have a question regarding travel and subsistence. Should I give a fig? If after the new regs I cannot claim it then I with either wfh, or work commutably. If a client really wants me that bad and they are not commutable then it's their problem, and they have to foot the costs, and I just say "blame the goverment". I also have less paperwork. Epic win?

If I am right about this, then the bigger problem is to do with being IR35 caught because you use an agency. So the answer there is to go direct. So again, what's the problem?

Or did I miss something? :happy

Yep they can't foot the costs. It either has to come out of your taxed income or you need to pay NI and income tax on the benefit in kind you received by them paying for the hotel you needed to work in their office in outer Snowdonia...

TheCoconutDog
30th August 2015, 14:26
Following all this stuff is quite a mind bender.

I have a question regarding travel and subsistence. Should I give a fig? If after the new regs I cannot claim it then I with either wfh, or work commutably. If a client really wants me that bad and they are not commutable then it's their problem, and they have to foot the costs, and I just say "blame the goverment". I also have less paperwork. Epic win?

If I am right about this, then the bigger problem is to do with being IR35 caught because you use an agency. So the answer there is to go direct. So again, what's the problem?

Or did I miss something? :happy

Good luck with this strategy....

suityou01
30th August 2015, 14:36
Yep they can't foot the costs. It either has to come out of your taxed income or you need to pay NI and income tax on the benefit in kind you received by them paying for the hotel you needed to work in their office in outer Snowdonia...

So just work local then.

Edit: this is all about survival, surely. Once companies realise there's a shortfall in niche skills on the freelance market, and their costs have now doubled I'm sure the government will be quite unpopular with industry. Just need to pull the horns in and watch the fireworks.

TestMangler
30th August 2015, 15:49
So just work local then.

Edit: this is all about survival, surely. Once companies realise there's a shortfall in niche skills on the freelance market, and their costs have now doubled I'm sure the government will be quite unpopular with industry. Just need to pull the horns in and watch the fireworks.

In the last 15 or so years since IR35, can you name one IT industry change that has actually worked in our favour ? Opt out ? ICT ? 'Entrepreneur' visa ? Tier 2 ?

Your 'niche skills' will become subject to some kind of fast track visa and a 10 day 'degree' course at a university in the sub continent. This isn't about survival and finding a new way of working to avoid the changes. It'll in most cases, be about contracting in a way that makes you subject to the same tax rules as permies. Has anyone considered what role the agency workers regs will have if we are taxed at source, are within SD&C ?

eek
30th August 2015, 16:06
In the last 15 or so years since IR35, can you name one IT industry change that has actually worked in our favour ? Opt out ? ICT ? 'Entrepreneur' visa ? Tier 2 ?

Your 'niche skills' will become subject to some kind of fast track visa and a 10 day 'degree' course at a university in the sub continent. This isn't about survival and finding a new way of working to avoid the changes. It'll in most cases, be about contracting in a way that makes you subject to the same tax rules as permies. Has anyone considered what role the agency workers regs will have if we are taxed at source, are within SD&C ?

Nope but SDorC isn't mentioned in the original discussion document unless acrobat's word search is failing https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387335/Employment_Intermediaries_-_Temporary_workers___relief_for_travel_and_subsist ence_expenses.pdf

mudskipper
30th August 2015, 19:01
I've drafted mine today (for T&S). I think the main thing people need to do is focus on the questions on page 18 (repeated on 23). They've specifically said they're not looking for alternative proposals for this one (p29)

The main points I've tried to make within those parameters are

1) Unfair tax advantage to consultancies
2) A different set of tests to IR35 not helpful - adds to complexity, doesn't resolve.
3) Getting client to decide is not going to work - what client is going to say you're never going to be under SDC?

Basically, if they're going ahead with this (and they are) it seems wrong to me to preempt the IR35 reforms. If they must, then make it IR35 caught = no T&S, and leave the detail of SDC / client responsibility / liability to the IR35 discussion.

Having now been pointed at the original thread on the IPSE forums, and having seen their response to the first discussion document, (members only linky (https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/consultation-on-travel-and-subsistence-expenses.108722/page-2#post-960309)), they pretty much raised all the points that we've discussed this time round, except SDC which wasn't mentioned in the original discussion document.

The consultation doc (p28) seems to have addressed these points with

"HMRC recognises that the travel and subsistence of many PSCs are
legitimate business costs and accepts that any action should not undermine
genuine arrangements. However, we must also ensure that any changes will
not result in workers merely shifting into PSCs."

Guess the argument now has to be against SDC.

suityou01
31st August 2015, 08:02
I read the IR35 consultation doc (11 pages). First thought was that what they're trying to achieve is long overdue, and absolutely valid.

My only problem is the case studies, which don't really represent a truly self employed person through a PSC.

In fact, the simplicity of the comparison of the two lawyers was so basic, and so unenlightened it really troubled me.

Two lawyers, in the same gig processing similar cases, both paid 70K. Lawyer A is PAYE, and Lawyer B is PSC. It took a polarised view on just the tax aspects. In fact it was so polarised it forgot to look at some really important aspects, such as the legitimate cost of a PAYE worker. Such that I think it's fair to take double their gross salary as the cost to the business.

Not going to rehash what others have said on here, but I found the case studies woefully inadequate, and if they are basing the consultation process on these two case studies, then I seriously question the value of the output from said consultation.

teapot418
31st August 2015, 08:17
I read the IR35 consultation doc (11 pages). First thought was that what they're trying to achieve is long overdue, and absolutely valid.

My only problem is the case studies, which don't really represent a truly self employed person through a PSC.

In fact, the simplicity of the comparison of the two lawyers was so basic, and so unenlightened it really troubled me.

Two lawyers, in the same gig processing similar cases, both paid 70K. Lawyer A is PAYE, and Lawyer B is PSC. It took a polarised view on just the tax aspects. In fact it was so polarised it forgot to look at some really important aspects, such as the legitimate cost of a PAYE worker. Such that I think it's fair to take double their gross salary as the cost to the business.

Not going to rehash what others have said on here, but I found the case studies woefully inadequate, and if they are basing the consultation process on these two case studies, then I seriously question the value of the output from said consultation.

No-one can argue with the idea of simplifying IR35 - it's the detail that's causing concern. What do you think of the proposal that the current tests are replaced with a single test - whether the engager has a right of supervision, direction or control over the worker (reflecting the T&S consultation)? All current case law becomes obsolete. Combine that with the fact that any contractor engaged through an agency will automatically assumed to be under supervision, direction or control and it all looks rather bleak.
How HMRC is revoking tax relief on contractor expenses :: Contractor UK (http://www.contractoruk.com/news/0012178how_hmrc_revoking_your_rights_expenses.html )

WordIsBond
31st August 2015, 09:02
In fact, the simplicity of the comparison of the two lawyers was so basic, and so unenlightened it really troubled me.

Two lawyers, in the same gig processing similar cases, both paid 70K. Lawyer A is PAYE, and Lawyer B is PSC. It took a polarised view on just the tax aspects. In fact it was so polarised it forgot to look at some really important aspects, such as the legitimate cost of a PAYE worker. Such that I think it's fair to take double their gross salary as the cost to the business.

This has been discussed in some detail: http://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/108574-ben-jo-case-study-ir35.html

If there are other details that you think we've missed, please comment so we can include them in the response. Certainly, the problems with this lawyer comparison should be part of the response we give.


Not going to rehash what others have said on here, but I found the case studies woefully inadequate, and if they are basing the consultation process on these two case studies, then I seriously question the value of the output from said consultation.
The output based on those case studies will be very valuable to HMRC in the short run because it will bring in more tax, but very detrimental in the long run because it will destroy the flexible workforce.

It doesn't recognise the real world, it doesn't recognise long term ramifications, it doesn't recognise differences between the cases they are comparing, it doesn't recognise the impact on contractors, who will be worse off than employees, all it looks at is how much money HMRC takes from a nominal amount of compensation, not even recognising that the nominal amount, in reality, is drastically different for the two cases. It doesn't even recognise the impact of legally-mandated auto-enrolment nor the fact that dividend taxation is changing next April. It is either incompetence on a staggering level or intentional misrepresentation. (I hope I'm not being too diplomatic.)

suityou01
31st August 2015, 09:47
No-one can argue with the idea of simplifying IR35 - it's the detail that's causing concern. What do you think of the proposal that the current tests are replaced with a single test - whether the engager has a right of supervision, direction or control over the worker (reflecting the T&S consultation)? All current case law becomes obsolete. Combine that with the fact that any contractor engaged through an agency will automatically assumed to be under supervision, direction or control and it all looks rather bleak.
How HMRC is revoking tax relief on contractor expenses :: Contractor UK (http://www.contractoruk.com/news/0012178how_hmrc_revoking_your_rights_expenses.html )

I guess we need a clear definition of what "through an agency" means. Does this mean the initial introduction?

Could the agency do the initial introduction, and the PSC then invoice directly, and the agent then invoice the PSC for his/her cut?

suityou01
31st August 2015, 09:51
This has been discussed in some detail: http://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/108574-ben-jo-case-study-ir35.html

If there are other details that you think we've missed, please comment so we can include them in the response. Certainly, the problems with this lawyer comparison should be part of the response we give.

The output based on those case studies will be very valuable to HMRC in the short run because it will bring in more tax, but very detrimental in the long run because it will destroy the flexible workforce.

It doesn't recognise the real world, it doesn't recognise long term ramifications, it doesn't recognise differences between the cases they are comparing, it doesn't recognise the impact on contractors, who will be worse off than employees, all it looks at is how much money HMRC takes from a nominal amount of compensation, not even recognising that the nominal amount, in reality, is drastically different for the two cases. It doesn't even recognise the impact of legally-mandated auto-enrolment nor the fact that dividend taxation is changing next April. It is either incompetence on a staggering level or intentional misrepresentation. (I hope I'm not being too diplomatic.)

I would think applying Hanlons razor here is a wise choice, if even only for your sanity.

The previous IR35 looked at the practicalities of the working relationship to establish if SD&C applied. To just assume it because an agency is involved seems verging on if not entirely illegal.

I think they may have egg on their face over this.

teapot418
31st August 2015, 09:59
I guess we need a clear definition of what "through an agency" means. Does this mean the initial introduction?

Could the agency do the initial introduction, and the PSC then invoice directly, and the agent then invoice the PSC for his/her cut?

In many cases, the client wants to deal with an agency, not with contractors directly. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that clients will be risk adverse.

But I'm sure you're right - there will be ways round at least some of this - but creating a different set of hoops to jump through rather defeats the object of what they're trying to achieve, doesn't it?

WordIsBond
31st August 2015, 10:03
I would think applying Hanlons razor here is a wise choice, if even only for your sanity.
Unnecessary. I don't care whether it is malice or stupidity, so I don't have to try to decide. I just grant myself the luxury of pointing out the two alternatives to my MP. It's his job to diagnose whether the people who allegedly work for him (well, for the government) are stupid or malicious, and what he and his colleagues should do about that diagnosis.

suityou01
31st August 2015, 10:05
This has been discussed in some detail: http://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/108574-ben-jo-case-study-ir35.html

If there are other details that you think we've missed, please comment so we can include them in the response. Certainly, the problems with this lawyer comparison should be part of the response we give.

The output based on those case studies will be very valuable to HMRC in the short run because it will bring in more tax, but very detrimental in the long run because it will destroy the flexible workforce.

It doesn't recognise the real world, it doesn't recognise long term ramifications, it doesn't recognise differences between the cases they are comparing, it doesn't recognise the impact on contractors, who will be worse off than employees, all it looks at is how much money HMRC takes from a nominal amount of compensation, not even recognising that the nominal amount, in reality, is drastically different for the two cases. It doesn't even recognise the impact of legally-mandated auto-enrolment nor the fact that dividend taxation is changing next April. It is either incompetence on a staggering level or intentional misrepresentation. (I hope I'm not being too diplomatic.)

Well I think it's pretty well covered, but I assume the PAYE lawyer is provided with a computer. I have to run my own equipment which involves upgrades and maintenance costs, and of course software licensing. Not to mention additional hours fixing them when they go wrong.

If it's in the thread apologies but I didn't see it.

suityou01
31st August 2015, 10:10
In many cases, the client wants to deal with an agency, not with contractors directly. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that clients will be risk adverse.

But I'm sure you're right - there will be ways round at least some of this - but creating a different set of hoops to jump through rather defeats the object of what they're trying to achieve, doesn't it?

Again why I think this will rather leave them flat footed. The consultation document doesn't take into account divvy tax. How embarrassing. When they make their move, the agencies and lawyers will cut through it all and find another way around it all, making is an expensive waste of time.

I want to know who these stakeholders are they mention, as they should have approved the document and are equally embarrassed.

The incompetence is there for all to see. They had the option to boil the frog slowly, but tried to go straight for the boiling water option. I see HMRC being greatly outnumbered, and coming out of this quite badly unless they get the house in order pdq.

suityou01
31st August 2015, 10:11
Unnecessary. I don't care whether it is malice or stupidity, so I don't have to try to decide. I just grant myself the luxury of pointing out the two alternatives to my MP. It's his job to diagnose whether the people who allegedly work for him (well, for the government) are stupid or malicious, and what he and his colleagues should do about that diagnosis.

Haven't you heard? It's trial by media these days. Plenty of papers want to have a pop at the Tories.

WordIsBond
31st August 2015, 10:26
Haven't you heard? It's trial by media these days. Plenty of papers want to have a pop at the Tories.
Yeah, well I'm not a paper, but I do, too, after that budget.

Three things:
1) Definite tax changes announced (divi tax, employment allowance).
2) Aggressively tighten rules on T&S.
3) Aggressively tighten rules on IR35.

Any one of those three, in isolation, I could understand, even support. All three? Or even two of them? What happened, did a contractor steal a girl that Georgie and Davie wanted back at uni, and they are just now getting their revenge?

Thanks for the point on Ben's computer, I'll add that in.

suityou01
31st August 2015, 10:50
Yeah, well I'm not a paper, but I do, too, after that budget.

Three things:
1) Definite tax changes announced (divi tax, employment allowance).
2) Aggressively tighten rules on T&S.
3) Aggressively tighten rules on IR35.

Any one of those three, in isolation, I could understand, even support. All three? Or even two of them? What happened, did a contractor steal a girl that Georgie and Davie wanted back at uni, and they are just now getting their revenge?

Thanks for the point on Ben's computer, I'll add that in.

Precisely. Trying to boil the frog too quickly. We just need a few people in high places to cotton on what this means for businesses bottom line and this will fold.

Businesses have to engage consultancies instead of contractors. Their bottom line is hit hard. Consultancies do well. PI firms go bust. Mass layoffs of permies. Greater unemployment. Bad news for call me Dave.

Just think it through. This cannot and will not go through as is, or the shit will hit the fan.

WordIsBond
31st August 2015, 11:00
Precisely. Trying to boil the frog too quickly. We just need a few people in high places to cotton on what this means for businesses bottom line and this will fold.

Businesses have to engage consultancies instead of contractors. Their bottom line is hit hard. Consultancies do well. PI firms go bust. Mass layoffs of permies. Greater unemployment. Bad news for call me Dave.

Just think it through. This cannot and will not go through as is, or the tulip will hit the fan.
You would be 100% correct if it were not that you are relying heavily on an assumption which remains unproven.

That assumption is that there is anyone "in high places" intelligent enough to be able to "cotton on" to what this means. I would have thought there were plenty such before that budget, but now, one can't be so sure.

Where are the people in government, or even backbench Tory MPs, who are saying, "Wait a minute! What kind of stupidity is this?"

suityou01
31st August 2015, 11:19
You would be 100% correct if it were not that you are relying heavily on an assumption which remains unproven.

That assumption is that there is anyone "in high places" intelligent enough to be able to "cotton on" to what this means. I would have thought there were plenty such before that budget, but now, one can't be so sure.

Where are the people in government, or even backbench Tory MPs, who are saying, "Wait a minute! What kind of stupidity is this?"

They're there. There just sitting back and waiting for someone lower down to cotton on so they don't have to get their hands dirty. If it comes to it, they will.

jamesbrown
31st August 2015, 12:04
They're there. There just sitting back and waiting for someone lower down to cotton on so they don't have to get their hands dirty. If it comes to it, they will.

Seriously, I admire your optimism, but this is a coordinated effort through a number of vehicles (onshore and offshore intermediaries, agency reporting, dividend taxation, T&S consultation and IR35 discussion etc., and you can probably wave goodbye to the VAT FRS and ER soon). This doesn't simply originate from a couple of low-level grunts in HMRC, it's a coordinated attack from HMG on multiple fronts. To a large degree, the writing was on the wall following the pre-election promises to avoid any increases in general taxation, coupled with the negative press surrounding off-payroll arrangements and avoidance. Defining us (PSCs) and conflating us with tax avoidance can be seen as laying the groundwork.

suityou01
31st August 2015, 12:15
Seriously, I admire your optimism, but this is a coordinated effort through a number of vehicles (onshore and offshore intermediaries, agency reporting, dividend taxation, T&S consultation and IR35 discussion etc., and you can probably wave goodbye to the VAT FRS and ER soon). This doesn't simply originate from a couple of low-level grunts in HMRC, it's a coordinated attack from HMG on multiple fronts. To a large degree, the writing was on the wall following the pre-election promises to avoid any increases in general taxation, coupled with the negative press surrounding off-payroll arrangements and avoidance. Defining us (PSCs) and conflating us with tax avoidance can be seen as laying the groundwork.

If it's such a coordinated effort, how come the consultation document is a pile of shite?

Does rather look like some junior wrote it I'm afraid. :ohwell

jamesbrown
31st August 2015, 12:39
If it's such a coordinated effort, how come the consultation document is a pile of tulipe?

Does rather look like some junior wrote it I'm afraid. :ohwell

Because HMRC consultation documents always look like a pile of tulip. More specifically, since when has HMRC guidance borne any relation to case law or logic for that matter? They always present edge cases to support their argument (as perceived), rather than providing a balanced view.

mudskipper
31st August 2015, 12:50
Seriously, I admire your optimism, but this is a coordinated effort through a number of vehicles (onshore and offshore intermediaries, agency reporting, dividend taxation, T&S consultation and IR35 discussion etc., and you can probably wave goodbye to the VAT FRS and ER soon). This doesn't simply originate from a couple of low-level grunts in HMRC, it's a coordinated attack from HMG on multiple fronts. To a large degree, the writing was on the wall following the pre-election promises to avoid any increases in general taxation, coupled with the negative press surrounding off-payroll arrangements and avoidance. Defining us (PSCs) and conflating us with tax avoidance can be seen as laying the groundwork.

WHS

From the T&S consultation (p6)

"These proposals are part of a strategic approach to clarify the differences between
employment and self-employment, and the use of employment intermediaries. This
will ensure those who are in an employment relationship are taxed as employees, on a
fair and consistent basis."

I think that presents a reasonable argument that preempting the outcome of the IR35 discussion by implementing SDC for T&S is premature, but unfortunately, looking at the dismissal of the concerns that were raised at discussion stage, it doesn't look like reasonable arguments are given reasonable consideration.

jamesbrown
31st August 2015, 12:58
I think that present a reasonable argument that preempting the outcome of the IR35 discussion by implementing SDC for T&S is premature, but unfortunately, looking at the dismissal of the concerns that were raised at discussion stage, it doesn't look like reasonable arguments are given reasonable consideration.

Precisely, which is why the T&S response is so important (if a little futile) as a precursor to the IR35 discussion. Once the T&S is implemented, it's really quite difficult to see them backing away from precisely the suggestions made in the IR35 discussion, possibly with some added bells and whistles. That said, we need to put this aside for now as a distraction, develop and evidence the case against, and hope that reason has not entirely exited stage left.

mudskipper
31st August 2015, 16:09
P14:


Personal Services

The intention is that the worker must personally provide their services to another person (the engager) or be obliged to do so.


Any thoughts on how this fits with RoS?