PDA

View Full Version : A suggestion - for free - for critique



webberg
22nd October 2015, 12:07
Clearly contracting will not be the same come April 2016.

Equally clearly a number of "solutions" will be offered. Some will be transparent, some less so. I would point everybody to a thread in the HMRC Enquiries section that gives you some questions to ask of those offering solutions.

That said, I have sketched below for public examination, debate, debasement, criticism and opinion an idea.

Whilst I understand something about tax, my knowledge of how the contracting world works at a practical level is at least 15 years out of date. As such the idea here may be totally unworkable. If there are elements that might be useful however I offer them for further development.

Let's assume that there is some form of registry to which contractors could sign up. This registry contains information such as specialism, industry sector, location, etc.

Our example contractor says that he/she is expert in currant bun production for formula 1 teams.

The registry operator contacts the contractor and says, "We have 19 other people with a similar profile. Would you like to meet them and discuss going into business together?"

The 20 people discuss and agree that pooling their resources is good for them (concentration of expertise, monopoly, covering all the formula 1 teams) and that the downsides (collective bargaining, internal competition) can be smoothed out.

They form the "Currant Bun Formula 1 partnership". (CBF1)

Part of this partnership is a new company (CBF1 Co) which is formed by and owned by the 20 individuals. Their ownership is prorated according to their contribution to the partnership. (This harks back to the banking payments companies which were owned by the banks using it and where ownership percentage moved every year, dependent upon volume).

The CBF1 partnership negotiates with a client as a collective. Once the scope of service is agreed, the partnership selects which partner(s) will be allocated to do the work.

It may be that the client prefers to be invoiced by a company, in which case the company permits one (or more) of its owner/directors to do the actual work.

The partnership invoices the formula 1 team.

The profits in the partnership are allocated to each of the 20 individuals plus the company. The individual allocation is perhaps a fixed amount each year (base value). The remainder goes to the company.

The company has income from its own work (supplying people) and the work of its fellow partners allocated as a partnership share.

The company owners decide upon a distribution policy.

That might be - after corporation tax, allocate 20% of profits to a general reserve (see below), allocate 20% of profits to a shareholder reserve (see below) and distribute 60% as a dividend. (Perhaps shareholders can waive their dividend wholly or partly if the company makes a contribution to a pension fund).

The general reserve is to be used to support (make loans) to individual partners who are temporarily not contributing.

The shareholder reserve is allocated to a fund to buy out the shareholders stake. This is only available after a given time or if the value increases over a certain value.

Provisions to allow individuals to join/leave are written in.

A partnership is ill defined but can be thought of as "a group working for a common purpose", in this case, in business.

Not a PSC or an MSC. Choice of invoicing vehicle. Individual responsibility for tax. Ability to take dividends.

There are "mixed partnership" tax avoidance rules but they have a motive exemption.

Most problems might be in joining/leaving and collective bargaining?

I reckon that a 28 gram, number 8 cartridge might be enough to shoot some holes in this sketch, but I'd be interested in thoughts.

DaveB
22nd October 2015, 12:21
A few immediate thoughts.

If the net income is less than I would get from being a one man band (even allowing for the potential changes) then I'm not interested. I already manage my Ltd. cash flow to allow for down time etc. I don't need someone else to do it for me and pay for the priveledge and I dont want to rely on the largess of others for my income.

Who sets the day rates for the work being done? Does each individual go at at their own rate? If you are negotiating collectively and the rate is lower than I could get myself why would I work for less?

Who decides who does each job? If it's a subset of the members there is a risk it wll be abused so that A,B and C dish out the work which is all done by D,E and F while A,B and C sit back and take the profits.

Likewise, if a plum gig comes up that several members want, who decides who gets it?

I still carry all the tax liabilities I did before with the addition of the fact that should HMRC decide this "scheme" didnt work I could be liable for even more.

webberg
22nd October 2015, 12:28
A few immediate thoughts.

If the net income is less than I would get from being a one man band (even allowing for the potential changes) then I'm not interested. I already manage my Ltd. cash flow to allow for down time etc. I don't need someone else to do it for me and pay for the priveledge and I dont want to rely on the largess of others for my income.

Who decides who does each job? If it's a subset of the members there is a risk it wll be abused so that A,B and C dish out the work which is all done by D,E and F while A,B and C sit back and take the profits.

Likewise, if a plum gig comes up that several members want, who decides who gets it?

I still carry all the tax liabilities I did before with the addition of the fact that should HMRC decide this "scheme" didnt work I could be liable for even more.

Valid points all.

The key advantage is that you are far less likely to be seen as being within IR35 or in disguised employment.

The company in the partnership has the majority of the income and this is distributed to each shareholder pro rate. I'd see the management of the income generated by each individual very much in the control of that individual but with some contribution to the common fund.

I accept that it works only for those with common aims (specialisms or as I learnt this morning "scrum teams").

northernladuk
22nd October 2015, 12:28
The time and effort spent forming this team and agreeing will take so long the time spent on the bench sorting it would outweigh any possible benefits....

The politics and management of a disparate team of individuals pretending to work as a cohesive team will be an utter nightmare.

Are there not plenty of small consultancies that already offer services such as this to the client without them risking a bunch of contractors forming a tax dodging unit and coming in unmanaged and unfocussed?

Even if this did work I don't think I'd want to be part of it. I see no one in a position of authority or responsibility here and if it worked once future applications would just degenerate in a free for all to join a tax dodge set up.

The set up might work if you tweaked it but would any client ever go for this. You are forgetting we are suppliers and we need clients and they aren't really mentioned here.

DaveB
22nd October 2015, 12:39
Valid points all.

The key advantage is that you are far less likely to be seen as being within IR35 or in disguised employment.

The company in the partnership has the majority of the income and this is distributed to each shareholder pro rate. I'd see the management of the income generated by each individual very much in the control of that individual but with some contribution to the common fund.

I accept that it works only for those with common aims (specialisms or as I learnt this morning "scrum teams").

Just to add, as I edited my post after you had quoted it.

Who sets the day rates for the work being done? Does each individual go at at their own rate? If you are negotiating collectively and the rate is lower than I could get myself why would I work for less?

And I dont think it removes or reduces the risk of IR35 as HMRC could actually challenge on the fact that I am a disgused employee of the "collective" as it decides where I am going to work and when, and how much I will get paid for it.

DaveB
22nd October 2015, 12:41
One more,

How do you pro-rata payments based on work done when you are distributing those funds via Dividends?

Having anything other than a simple share structure will give HMRC grounds to challenge it as an artificial arrangement purely to avoid paying it as taxable income under PAYE.

jamesbrown
22nd October 2015, 12:50
And I dont think it removes or reduces the risk of IR35 as HMRC could actually challenge on the fact that I am a disgused employee of the "collective" as it decides where I am going to work and when, and how much I will get paid for it.

I think that's the basis for mooting 20 people, i.e. 5% ownership. There are some (pre)conditions of liability for the application of IR35, and this is one of them, i.e. >5% of the ordinary share capital.

Similar schemes were proposed when IR35 was first implemented. The fundamental problem, unavoidable by design, is that any such aggregation of workers will lead to problems surrounding fairness and allocation of the rewards of the business gained. I wouldn't, under any circumstances, entertain the possibility of collaborating with unknown individuals in order to gain a tax advantage. I want to control the direction of my own business. It's bound to end in tears because it's all about the tax tail wagging the dog.

webberg
22nd October 2015, 13:08
The time and effort spent forming this team and agreeing will take so long the time spent on the bench sorting it would outweigh any possible benefits....

The politics and management of a disparate team of individuals pretending to work as a cohesive team will be an utter nightmare.

Are there not plenty of small consultancies that already offer services such as this to the client without them risking a bunch of contractors forming a tax dodging unit and coming in unmanaged and unfocussed?

Even if this did work I don't think I'd want to be part of it. I see no one in a position of authority or responsibility here and if it worked once future applications would just degenerate in a free for all to join a tax dodge set up.

The set up might work if you tweaked it but would any client ever go for this. You are forgetting we are suppliers and we need clients and they aren't really mentioned here.

The collective element operates mainly to divi up funds/set conditions once a year.

The client point is valid but the client would continue to deal with their trusted contractor and/or put it out to tender anyway,

webberg
22nd October 2015, 13:11
Just to add, as I edited my post after you had quoted it.

Who sets the day rates for the work being done? Does each individual go at at their own rate? If you are negotiating collectively and the rate is lower than I could get myself why would I work for less?

And I dont think it removes or reduces the risk of IR35 as HMRC could actually challenge on the fact that I am a disgused employee of the "collective" as it decides where I am going to work and when, and how much I will get paid for it.

Who sets day rates = you.
Individual sets own rate = yes
No collective negotiation. Each partner is an agent for the partnership and negotiates on his/her own behalf and for the partnership.
IR 35 risk = you are a self employed partner responsible for client and to partnership. A partner cannot be a disguised employee unless they are salaried.

webberg
22nd October 2015, 13:13
One more,

How do you pro-rata payments based on work done when you are distributing those funds via Dividends?

Having anything other than a simple share structure will give HMRC grounds to challenge it as an artificial arrangement purely to avoid paying it as taxable income under PAYE.

Share classes have different entitlements to dividends.

Second point, I'd disagree with. HMRC can ignore artificial arrangements but not those having real effect such as shares. To be tested of course.

Fred Bloggs
22nd October 2015, 13:17
That's beginning to sound like how Brookson used to operate, we know how that ended.

DaveB
22nd October 2015, 13:25
Who sets day rates = you.
Individual sets own rate = yes
No collective negotiation. Each partner is an agent for the partnership and negotiates on his/her own behalf and for the partnership.
IR 35 risk = you are a self employed partner responsible for client and to partnership. A partner cannot be a disguised employee unless they are salaried.

From the OP.

"The CBF1 partnership negotiates with a client as a collective. Once the scope of service is agreed, the partnership selects which partner(s) will be allocated to do the work."

So the company will negitiate the scope of work but not the cost? Not many clients will go for that. Theyw ill want to know costs up front.

LondonManc
22nd October 2015, 13:44
I imagine I'll carry on contracting "as normal" for a couple of years, market allowing, then see what the bottom line looks like compared to the previous couple of comparative years. It may simply be the case that I need to reduce my cost base, just do a four-night stay away or negotiate working practices to reduce travel/accommodation costs.

Absolutely not head in the sand, but don't want to go down a co-operative route like you've suggested. I'd rather get together with contractors that I trust and form a consultancy of our own with a virtual head office, minimal general costs and engage other trusted contractors as associates if business grows.

cojak
22nd October 2015, 14:08
Never work under a partnership unless you understand EXACTLY how it works (regarding tax and other liabilities ).

There is one poster here who works in an LLP and says that it costs him slightly MORE tax than if he was Ltd.

I would never work in an LLP.

webberg
22nd October 2015, 16:31
Never work under a partnership unless you understand EXACTLY how it works (regarding tax and other liabilities ).

There is one poster here who works in an LLP and says that it costs him slightly MORE tax than if he was Ltd.

I would never work in an LLP.

An LLP would not work for the above. A member of an LLP is specifically no trading and that would be a problem with no solution. I agree though that an LLP is a busted flush for most tax purposes.

An LP would work. A GP would work but would have issued with joint and several liability.

The core idea here obviously is to work via some form of entity that is not

a. sole trading
b. a company
c. a syndicate

That leaves a limited choice.

There are some NON UK entities that might suit. There certainly used to be something called a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG - commonly referred to as an "earwig") which is a sort of pan european partnership. Having a beast that has its legal feet in another country but trades in the UK opens up all sorts of mischief. I guarantee that these are being looked at this very day.

More interesting is a cell company. You get these in Jersey/Guernsey/BVI etc.

malvolio
22nd October 2015, 16:49
An LLP would not work for the above. A member of an LLP is specifically no trading and that would be a problem with no solution. I agree though that an LLP is a busted flush for most tax purposes.

An LP would work. A GP would work but would have issued with joint and several liability.

The core idea here obviously is to work via some form of entity that is not

a. sole trading
b. a company
c. a syndicate

That leaves a limited choice.

There are some NON UK entities that might suit. There certainly used to be something called a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG - commonly referred to as an "earwig") which is a sort of pan european partnership. Having a beast that has its legal feet in another country but trades in the UK opens up all sorts of mischief. I guarantee that these are being looked at this very day.

More interesting is a cell company. You get these in Jersey/Guernsey/BVI etc.
You really need to talk to IPSE... :wink

Zero Liability
22nd October 2015, 18:48
Who sets day rates = you.
Individual sets own rate = yes
No collective negotiation. Each partner is an agent for the partnership and negotiates on his/her own behalf and for the partnership.
IR 35 risk = you are a self employed partner responsible for client and to partnership. A partner cannot be a disguised employee unless they are salaried.

I might be getting things a bit mixed up here, but I thought LLPs had their own equivalent of IR35, brought in last year?

mudskipper
22nd October 2015, 18:54
You really need to talk to IPSE... :wink

To what effect?

WordIsBond
22nd October 2015, 20:16
Part of this partnership is a new company (CBF1 Co) which is formed by and owned by the 20 individuals. Their ownership is prorated according to their contribution to the partnership.
You posit ownership moving every year. It would have to, because individuals' contributions would vary. If you have twenty partners, you'll probably lose one or two every year, you'll have someone on the bench part of the year, you'll have someone get a really good contract. Percentages will be changing constantly.

And if the goal is to keep from breaching the 5% ownership threshold, you probably need 40 partners, not 20, for those reasons.

The contractors wouldn't do the setup work, some accountant / brolly / agency of some kind would set it up and recruit the 40 contractors, presumably. And they would all be not only part owners, but also employees, right?

But if they are all employees, then you can run into trouble with changing share ownership, can't you? If an employee is given shares in an existing company, won't there be tax liability for the value of those shares? And they aren't valueless....

I think it would be hard to make this work.

malvolio
22nd October 2015, 22:12
To what effect?
What do you think?

TykeMerc
23rd October 2015, 02:58
What do you think?

So you can advertise that bunch of l**rs some more? Don't be absurd.
Whatever Webberg is, he's a tax professional, not a bunch of clowns with an agenda who want to claim a mandate of 4.5 million with a "membership" of around 20,000 who are largely insurance customers anyway.

mudskipper
23rd October 2015, 04:49
What do you think?

I don't know - I went over a number of possibilities, and came to no conclusion, hence my question.

malvolio
23rd October 2015, 07:25
So you can advertise that bunch of l**rs some more? Don't be absurd.
Whatever Webberg is, he's a tax professional, not a bunch of clowns with an agenda who want to claim a mandate of 4.5 million with a "membership" of around 20,000 who are largely insurance customers anyway.
I think you'll find the guy advising IPSE on this whole area is at least as much of a tax professional as Mr Webber, but let's not let reality intrude on your little world.

mudskipper
23rd October 2015, 07:36
I think you'll find the guy advising IPSE on this whole area is at least as much of a tax professional as Mr Webber, but let's not let reality intrude on your little world.

So, to repeat my question, what do you think could be achieved by Mr Webber, a tax specialist, talking to IPSE?

DaveB
23rd October 2015, 08:21
You really need to talk to IPSE... :wink


What do you think?


I think you'll find the guy advising IPSE on this whole area is at least as much of a tax professional as Mr Webber, but let's not let reality intrude on your little world.

Mal, please stop with the cryptic bollocks (sorry mods) on the professional forums. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. Otherwise please stop being a distraction to otherwise useful discussions. If you can't even be bothered to give a straight answer to a fellow Council member then don't bother at all.

LisaContractorUmbrella
23rd October 2015, 09:45
An LLP would not work for the above. A member of an LLP is specifically no trading and that would be a problem with no solution. I agree though that an LLP is a busted flush for most tax purposes.

An LP would work. A GP would work but would have issued with joint and several liability.

The core idea here obviously is to work via some form of entity that is not

a. sole trading
b. a company
c. a syndicate

That leaves a limited choice.

There are some NON UK entities that might suit. There certainly used to be something called a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG - commonly referred to as an "earwig") which is a sort of pan european partnership. Having a beast that has its legal feet in another country but trades in the UK opens up all sorts of mischief. I guarantee that these are being looked at this very day.

More interesting is a cell company. You get these in Jersey/Guernsey/BVI etc.

Don't you have to make a capital contribution to an LP?? How would that work? Would the earnings generated coming into the partnership qualify?

malvolio
23rd October 2015, 10:16
Mal, please stop with the cryptic bollocks (sorry mods) on the professional forums. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. Otherwise please stop being a distraction to otherwise useful discussions. If you can't even be bothered to give a straight answer to a fellow Council member then don't bother at all.
He asked me to help out with IPSE some while ago. As far as I know nothing has yet come of it. As for "fellow council members", (a) I'm not aware I was talking to one since I don't bother tracking people across various websites and I'm not on here as an IPSE CC members anyway, and (b) since this is actually CC business I would prefer to deal with it where it belongs and where I can give straight answers.

HTH. BIDI.

TykeMerc
23rd October 2015, 10:39
So stop trying to advertise that organisation on the thread please. All you achieve is a derail. It doesn't enhance their reputation one bit, quite the opposite.

TykeMerc
23rd October 2015, 11:37
In response to the original suggestion, the major issues are trust, self interest and independence, none of which sit well in your scenario, but they're of great interest to most contractors.

I suspect you were expecting a strongly negative reaction, it is an interesting concept, what amounts to being a contractors cooperative, but the structure would need a lot more thought before it's appealing to many of us.

LondonManc
23rd October 2015, 11:39
In response to the original suggestion, the major issues are trust, self interest and independence, none of which sit well in your scenario, but they're of great interest to most contractors.

I suspect you were expecting a strongly negative reaction, it is an interesting concept, what amounts to being a contractors cooperative, but the structure would need a lot more thought before it's appealing to many of us.

The structure of cash flow would be the issue.

How do you divide it up? If Contractor A generates £120k of income, as does Contractor B, whereas Contractor C generates £100k and Contractor D £70k because he's been on the bench for 5 months, what happens?

TykeMerc
23rd October 2015, 11:50
The structure of cash flow would be the issue.

How do you divide it up? If Contractor A generates £120k of income, as does Contractor B, whereas Contractor C generates £100k and Contractor D £70k because he's been on the bench for 5 months, what happens?

Absolutely, but to get that far first you need people to overcome the concept of working together or under a joint structure.

The financial structure is not only difficult to frame it's impossible to sell.

malvolio
23rd October 2015, 12:10
So stop trying to advertise that organisation on the thread please. All you achieve is a derail. It doesn't enhance their reputation one bit, quite the opposite.
You're the one making a fuss over nothing and taking this thread off track. All I suggested was that there is potentially fruitful common ground

DonkeyRhubarb
23rd October 2015, 12:13
This may, or may not, get around IR35.

But I would be more concerned about the Agency Legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290051/Definition_of_Supervision_Direction_or_Control_wit h_supporting_examples.pdf

chubacabra
23rd October 2015, 12:58
At the risk of getting shot down in flames, I've tried to detail on a high level my job and typical setup on client site to prompt some further discussion:

I am a Software Developer in Test. I specialize in creating bespoke test automation frameworks to automate testing of software being created by other software developers on a project. Sometimes a framework will already have been started, and I will develop and enhance the existing framework.

We all work in a typical agile project team, typically there is a scrum master that facilitates the day to day running of the team - removing any blockers for the team as they arise. The rest of the team is made up of a variety of software developers, testers, database analysts and business analysts. The idea of an Agile Scrum team is that they are self organising and do not have a project manager, hence the scrum master is a facilitator.

We are provided an overall project backlog to work from, and we will have estimating meetings to define how big an individual piece of work is. Once the work items are prioritised by the business we will then take them into the work stream and work on them.

I fully decide how I go about writing software to automate a particular test or set of tests. The code will be peer reviewed by other developers on team and then added to the project codebase. Once I have finished working on the item it will be marked as done and I will move onto the next prioritised item.

From my perspective:

Supervision

No one really oversees my work. Could peer reviewing of code be considered supervision? Peer reviewing is always going to be involved in a project involving more than one person. It is not something that is limited to a client > employee relationship, more a collaborative piece of work.

Direction

No one makes me do my work in a partciular way. I am free to carry out the work as I see fit. This is the whole reason I am employed - for my expertese in this field.

Control

Does somebody dictate what work I undertake? We have a project backlog that is naturally organised by the business in priority of the business benefit that they will gain. Is this subject to change? Yes, but does that constitute control? Essentially I take the next work item that is made available out of a project as a whole.
I generally would not be moved from one project to another, unless I renew my contract with the client thus moving onto a new project

According to HMRCs view of the world (Example 1 of the SDC doc link above) I would be considered an employee.

So does that make a builder doing a piece of work for me an employee if I decide to change the scope, priority or requirement of the building project he is undertaking for me?

It just seems that the examples that HMRC use are deliberately unworkable to acheive the outcome they desire!

Any discussion welcome!

LisaContractorUmbrella
23rd October 2015, 13:36
HMRC have admitted that they will need to publish far, far more guidance if this all goes ahead but, historically, the examples they use are very rarely reflective of real world situations

malvolio
23rd October 2015, 13:39
Apart from applying logic to HMRC, that's a fair summary. However, Direction is the killer; you aren't there to make up work to be done, at some point someone at the client has to let you know what they want doing - even if it's only to say do your thing to this new programme if you would like to please - and that constitutes Direction. since the test is going to be Supervision, Control or Direction, you've already lost.

And you can make the same case for Supervision - someone has to authorise your timesheet - and Control - someone has know you were there and did something - so you're stuffed anyway.

MPwannadecentincome
23rd October 2015, 13:44
Apart from applying logic to HMRC, that's a fair summary. However, Direction is the killer; you aren't there to make up work to be done, at some point someone at the client has to let you know what they want doing - even if it's only to say do your thing to this new programme if you would like to please - and that constitutes Direction. since the test is going to be Supervision, Control or Direction, you've already lost.

And you can make the same case for Supervision - someone has to authorise your timesheet - and Control - someone has know you were there and did something - so you're stuffed anyway.

I can't see any role where "someone at the client has to let you know what they want doing" - why is that considered "Direction"?

chubacabra
23rd October 2015, 13:50
Apart from applying logic to HMRC, that's a fair summary. However, Direction is the killer; you aren't there to make up work to be done, at some point someone at the client has to let you know what they want doing - even if it's only to say do your thing to this new programme if you would like to please - and that constitutes Direction. since the test is going to be Supervision, Control or Direction, you've already lost.

And you can make the same case for Supervision - someone has to authorise your timesheet - and Control - someone has know you were there and did something - so you're stuffed anyway.

Exactly! So they've made it so it's impossible for anyone to fall outside of this :(

But in that respect Supervision, Direction or Control would apply to any company/person working on a project in any industry. My example about a builder can be applied absolutely anywhere!

jamesbrown
23rd October 2015, 13:59
Apart from applying logic to HMRC, that's a fair summary. However, Direction is the killer; you aren't there to make up work to be done, at some point someone at the client has to let you know what they want doing - even if it's only to say do your thing to this new programme if you would like to please - and that constitutes Direction. since the test is going to be Supervision, Control or Direction, you've already lost.

And you can make the same case for Supervision - someone has to authorise your timesheet - and Control - someone has know you were there and did something - so you're stuffed anyway.

As with the current IR35, there'll be an enormous gulf between what HMRC implies through their examples and the reality of the situation for anyone that is willing to pursue a case through the courts. They (HMG) basically have two options. One is to introduce a clear statutory test, in which case the test is clear. The other is to retain vague notions, such as SDC, in which case there is a presumed deterrent effect, broad in scope. If they go with the latter, a majority of contractors are going to pass the test, providing the courts are able to decide. There is literally zero possibility that a court would interpret direction as specification (what) alone and, in any case, a degree of specification is central to being able to complete a job, so it is indiscriminate. There is no precedent for such an interpretation and judges do not operate in a vacuum (on the contrary). Also, I don't believe this is really their (HMG's) intention, because SDC wouldn't be necessary if the aim were to catch everyone. The real issue here is with engagers making a decision about SDC.

LisaContractorUmbrella
23rd October 2015, 14:05
Exactly! So they've made it so it's impossible for anyone to fall outside of this :(

But in that respect Supervision, Direction or Control would apply to any company/person working on a project in any industry. My example about a builder can be applied absolutely anywhere!

This is an argument that we've had with HMRC but they will provide their own interpretation once they publish new legislation with the corresponding examples to illustrate. As JamesBrown says HMRC's interpretation will eventually be judged in Court and it may be that their interpretation is not that of the Judge who's looking at the case. The real point at issue is that determination for status will lie with the end client - a risk averse company could decide that it's not worth risking debt transfer and they will deem that all contractors are under SDC, a similarly risk averse company could decide that with SDC lies the risk of employer liabilities so they will decide all contractors are not under SDC. Until 25th November we won't know what's going to happen.

chubacabra
23rd October 2015, 14:15
This is an argument that we've had with HMRC but they will provide their own interpretation once they publish new legislation with the corresponding examples to illustrate. As JamesBrown says HMRC's interpretation will eventually be judged in Court and it may be that their interpretation is not that of the Judge who's looking at the case. The real point at issue is that determination for status will lie with the end client - a risk averse company could decide that it's not worth risking debt transfer and they will deem that all contractors are under SDC, a similarly risk averse company could decide that with SDC lies the risk of employer liabilities so they will decide all contractors are not under SDC. Until 25th November we won't know what's going to happen.

I really hope this turns out well... I feel like I'm being mugged multiple times by the government at the moment!

LisaContractorUmbrella
23rd October 2015, 14:20
I really hope this turns out well... I feel like I'm being mugged multiple times by the government at the moment!

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it"

Ronald Reagan

chubacabra
23rd October 2015, 14:24
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it"

Ronald Reagan

:D

Except for multinationals like Facebook et al.