PDA

View Full Version : Public sector IR35 consultation launched



Pages : [1] 2 3

teapot418
26th May 2016, 16:04
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/off-payroll-working-in-the-public-sector-reform-of-the-intermediaries-legislation

Includes the summary of responses to last summer's discussion document.

jamesbrown
26th May 2016, 16:37
The government is aware from the summer discussion this would require some public
sector organisations and agencies to join up separate systems they have for payroll and
for paying invoices. Some stakeholders told us these can be on different computer
systems. The government recognises that time is needed for organisations to receive
(and in some cases develop) the necessary software upgrades and put reporting
systems in place, which is why the new rules will not come into force until April 2017.

:laugh:laugh


For workers in the public sector this reform changes which party is liable to decide if a
payment should be taxed as employment income. No changes will be made to existing
employment law.

:laugh:laugh


There will be a statutory right to appeal against the tax and National Insurance liability.
Where a PSC or an engager disagree with a determination that the new rules apply, the
PSC and/or engager will be able to request a formal review of the decision and to appeal
that decision to the tribunal in the same way as other Pay As You Earn and National
Insurance decisions and determinations.

Forgive them, for they know not what they've done. :laugh

But the key to all this working (or not) is on p. 26. Essentially, if you (as an engager) can demonstrate lack of personal service and control, no further testing is required. If you can demonstrate one of these things, the new digital ESI must be used. There's no MoO test, i.e. they've opted for two elements of the existing IR35, despite what they say about retaining the legislation "as is". Sounds as though they've canned SDC for now too.

eek
26th May 2016, 17:32
Page 14 example 3 :rollin:

Every consultancy that uses contractors has a problem - and HMRC has a very big problem up in Newcastle. Shall I make the formal complaint on April 6th or wait to later in April 2017...

As does the document - as it has no example 5 (was it stupid or did it give the game away)...

GB9
27th May 2016, 09:12
In some ways we will at least get some clarity.

The important bit will be to run the tests prior to contract so everyone knows the situation upfront. I doubt this will happen in all cases and look forward to the first threads along the lines of 'agent told me it was outside but the client has run the tests and it's inside'.

northernladuk
27th May 2016, 09:21
Any guesses as to how they will apply these. I am guessing day before you are outside, on the day you are in? No chance they only apply to new sign-ups and continue as normal with existing contracts and frameworks?

eek
27th May 2016, 09:53
Any guesses as to how they will apply these. I am guessing day before you are outside, on the day you are in? No chance they only apply to new sign-ups and continue as normal with existing contracts and frameworks?

I'm out of this client come what may on the 31st March 2017....

eek
27th May 2016, 09:55
In some ways we will at least get some clarity.

The important bit will be to run the tests prior to contract so everyone knows the situation upfront. I doubt this will happen in all cases and look forward to the first threads along the lines of 'agent told me it was outside but the client has run the tests and it's inside'.

Read the document. The logic goes working through an agency - client passes test to agency to deal with.

Personally unless this is dropped Public Sector = no thanks come 1/4/17.... As I've said for a while you need to get up and out of the way.

missinggreenfields
27th May 2016, 09:56
Any guesses as to how they will apply these. I am guessing day before you are outside, on the day you are in? No chance they only apply to new sign-ups and continue as normal with existing contracts and frameworks?

More likely that they rule you inside and then say "nothing's changed, so you were always inside, that'll be £90k please"

GB9
27th May 2016, 11:14
Read the document. The logic goes working through an agency - client passes test to agency to deal with.

Personally unless this is dropped Public Sector = no thanks come 1/4/17.... As I've said for a while you need to get up and out of the way.

If that's the case then agency should be able to state whether inside or outside at the time of advertising. I would want written confirmation from both.

northernladuk
27th May 2016, 11:37
If that's the case then agency should be able to state whether inside or outside at the time of advertising. I would want written confirmation from both.

Not so sure it's the agencies responsibilities or within their risk profile to state that? They advertise the role. It's up-to us to decide no?

eek
27th May 2016, 11:51
Not so sure it's the agencies responsibilities or within their risk profile to state that? They advertise the role. It's up-to us to decide no?

They run the online test and pass the result on. The question is can HMRC query the result (as if they can you are doomed)...

You only have to look at Example 3 to show how likely you are to be caught be this (hint you are caught by it).

youngguy
27th May 2016, 12:54
The key Q for me is 1) when do we get to see the digital tool and 2) how much do I need to raise my day rate by to cover the extra 'taxes'

northernladuk
27th May 2016, 12:58
The key Q for me is 1) when do we get to see the digital tool and 2) how much do I need to raise my day rate by to cover the extra 'taxes'

2) is never going to work. Why do people suggest this?

eek
27th May 2016, 13:00
The key Q for me is 1) when do we get to see the digital tool and 2) how much do I need to raise my day rate by to cover the extra 'taxes'

1) Caught (all options will take you there).. If they don't HMRC appeal mechanism will ensure the decision is Caught....

2) won't work as market rate is market rate.

malvolio
27th May 2016, 13:04
Not so sure it's the agencies responsibilities or within their risk profile to state that? They advertise the role. It's up-to us to decide no?
No, not in the slightest.

The responsibility is with the hirer in the case of a direct contract, the agency if there is only one, or the agency nearest the PSC if there are multiple agencies (which, given HMC's ClOne process is most of them). Since most agencies belong to one or other big chain, then they will harmonise their efforts and say everyone is caught, leaving it to you to take it to court if you disagree - by which time you won't have a job anyway.

Also, for the same reason, this will move to the private sector in very short order.

It's also clear that HMRC have totally disregarded the previous consultation and gone their own, unworkable way. They are also explicitly denying any thought of us gaining employment rights in exchange for employment taxation levels. Time for us all to get behind IPSE and attack this proposal vigorously.

eek
27th May 2016, 13:21
No, not in the slightest.

The responsibility is with the hirer in the case of a direct contract, the agency if there is only one, or the agency nearest the PSC if there are multiple agencies (which, given HMC's ClOne process is most of them). Since most agencies belong to one or other big chain, then they will harmonise their efforts and say everyone is caught, leaving it to you to take it to court if you disagree - by which time you won't have a job anyway.

Also, for the same reason, this will move to the private sector in very short order.

It's also clear that HMRC have totally disregarded the previous consultation and gone their own, unworkable way. They are also explicitly denying any thought of us gaining employment rights in exchange for employment taxation levels. Time for us all to get behind IPSE and attack this proposal vigorously.

Unison and the GMB alongside the other unions will have a field day when they see this destruction of employment rights by the back door.... (Still haven't read everything in detail so thanks for the heads up).

Need to make a few phone calls next week...

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 13:22
It's also clear that HMRC have totally disregarded the previous consultation and gone their own, unworkable way. They are also explicitly denying any thought of us gaining employment rights in exchange for employment taxation levels. Time for us all to get behind IPSE and attack this proposal vigorously.

Yep. But on your last point, let's see how that pans out. I think they're being hopelessly optimistic, as there's already case law precedent against this distinction in very similar circumstances. Whether or not it makes us feel uncomfortable as independent professionals, it is a valid point of law on which to fight, and I'm certain it will be pursued (if, for no other reason, than to demonstrate the unworkable distinction between tax and employment law, going forward, when tax law is essentially dictated by the client).

There are a couple of Gov't responses to the original consultation with which I agree (e.g. length of contract, withholding tax), but the new consultation pays hardly any attention to what was said, and it will be entirely unworkable IMO. There will be a blanket determination of inside. Guaranteed. There will be a mass exodus to the private sector, with FTC becoming the de facto approach in Gov't. For the same reason, everyone expects that it will be rolled out to the private sector, where the response would be the same. Ergo, the destruction of the flexible economy. However, I don't think a rollout to the private sector is completely set in stone, and I don't think it will happen until 2019/20 at the earliest. They're using this staged approach to gauge the response. If it goes smoothly (:laugh:laugh), it's bound to be extended.

Forgotmylogin
27th May 2016, 13:23
2) is never going to work. Why do people suggest this?


1) Caught (all options will take you there).. If they don't HMRC appeal mechanism will ensure the decision is Caught....

2) won't work as market rate is market rate.

Market rates change. One reason rates may change is if costs go up.

This isn't the same as the two year rule, or even existing IR35, where some contractors either ignored or were completely ignorant of their responsibilities. In theory, if this were to go ahead, it would be shoved in their faces and they'd know that they faced additional costs.

teapot418
27th May 2016, 13:28
Maybe simplistic, but if HMG wants contractors to be taxed as employees, they should issue an edict saying that gov depts cannot engage contractors - i.e. everyone who works for them becomes an employee (with associated rights, pension etc...). They can't have their cake and eat it.

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 13:33
They can't have their cake and eat it.

Oh, but that's exactly what they want. Have cake, will eat. Still have cake.

That isn't how it will end, of course, but that's their starting position.

missinggreenfields
27th May 2016, 13:36
If it goes smoothly (:laugh:laugh), it's bound to be extended.

So we need to ensure that it doesn't go smoothly :devil

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 13:38
So we need to ensure that it doesn't go smoothly :devil

I don't think we need to do much. :laugh

<Puts kettle on. Sups tea. Waits.>

malvolio
27th May 2016, 13:39
Oh, but that's exactly what they want. Have cake, will eat. Still have cake.

That isn't how it will end, of course, but that's their starting position.
No, they simply switch to FTCs across the board.

eek
27th May 2016, 13:39
If it goes smoothly (:laugh:laugh), it's bound to be extended.

As I've said elsewhere if its shown to work (for any definition of work that means it can be extended) it will be extended.

northernladuk
27th May 2016, 13:40
No, they simply switch to FTCs across the board.

Which is exactly what is starting to happen at my client.

SueEllen
27th May 2016, 13:40
No, they simply switch to FTCs across the board.

Oh then they will have difficulties getting workers then. I wonder if that's happened before....

eek
27th May 2016, 13:43
No, they simply switch to FTCs across the board.

They know that won't work.... However, its what they should be doing so how about expliciting fighting for and removing the Limited Company withheld payment option?

That gives them two options - explicitly outside IR35 or on payroll, no middle ground... It also means no computer systems or payment systems need to be modified....

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 13:44
No, they simply switch to FTCs across the board.

Yes, that's what I said. But that won't be having their cake and eating it, because the quality of person going for an FTC will be dramatically worse, at least as long as it doesn't apply in the private sector. Also, like I said, they're going to learn from this process that it's unworkable. If they weren't intending to learn, they'd have gone straight to FTCs. The way Gov't works is that it completely fails to understand market forces, but it also has some inclination of that, from past experience. So it does things (appoints Alan Sugar, runs trail balloons) to confirm that lack of understanding, and then typically proceeds anyway. Only this time, they can't have their cake and eat it. Either they lose the flexible economy or they lose talent to the private sector en masse. One or the other.

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 13:46
ps. in case anyone was still wondering, if they're working in the UK public sector, they should start planning their exit for March 2017 at the latest.

garnet
27th May 2016, 14:23
I dont see why a programmer from here can not be contracted by hmrc to modify their systems to allow this tulip.
The sum for grabs is upto £500000, see page 32 :)

bobspud
27th May 2016, 14:50
So when they started this whole fiasco back in 2012 I was on a small site in the west country. I pointed out the whole payroll issue was coming to bite them and the Senior Civil servant at time sat in a programme board and said "Don't worry, Im sure we will just find more people willing to take our permanent roles..." At which point I said ok stand up if you have a green badge (3 of them) now the rest of us with green badges (20 odd) now stay standing if you want a permanent role 0

You can guess why I neither wanted a renewal or got one :icmc:

But the point was while those poor sods were bending over to screw their own delivery team and get everyone to flee. The place up the road were offering fixed price contracts with no day rates and just payment milestones and it would have been a real b2b contract and past all the issues that they were trying to sort out.

This is basically a case of someone having a grand vision and everyone else saying great lets follow your idea to the letter and see how badly it goes wrong.

But just like last time some departments will be more equal than others when it comes to taking orders...

youngguy
27th May 2016, 15:17
2) is never going to work. Why do people suggest this?

That depends on the contractor market. IF (and it is a big if I know) the public sector contractors all walk overnight and state they won't work for x, then it will cause the need for a rethink. Eg gov dept changes rate to retain contractors. Another option is those contractors sub to big consultancies (contractor is still caught but the day rates are higher for contractor).

As a business I can set my rate....whether the prospective client accepts it is of course another matter.

youngguy
27th May 2016, 15:20
Oh, but that's exactly what they want. Have cake, will eat. Still have cake.

That isn't how it will end, of course, but that's their starting position.

This for me. If you wanna tax me like an employee, give me the rights and safety of an employee. Why tax me like an employee when I am a business?

youngguy
27th May 2016, 15:24
How does this work with corp tax? If we are taxed at point of invoice and expenses are limited to 5% (did I get that right?) Then what are we taxed on com corp time?

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 15:28
How does this work with corp tax? If we are taxed at point of invoice and expenses are limited to 5% (did I get that right?) Then what are we taxed on com corp time?

You and YourCo will get a credit for all taxes deducted upfront. This will be used to offset all other taxes that would otherwise apply. In practice, what this means is that you'll either extract all (taxed) income as salary or as a dividend and no further tax will be due (whether CT or PAYE/NI taxes or dividend taxes). Other sources of company and personal income will be taxed as normal (VAT FRS profit, other contracts, interest income etc.)

bobspud
27th May 2016, 15:46
That depends on the contractor market. IF (and it is a big if I know) the public sector contractors all walk overnight and state they won't work for x, then it will cause the need for a rethink. Eg gov dept changes rate to retain contractors. Another option is those contractors sub to big consultancies (contractor is still caught but the day rates are higher for contractor).

As a business I can set my rate....whether the prospective client accepts it is of course another matter.

Don't worry. There is a finite number of people that have the clearances. when they realise that everyone to a dog has fled and no-one with an SC will go near them they will quickly find a way to say sorry and drop it. just like the whole PSC mess a few years back...

eek
27th May 2016, 17:35
You and YourCo will get a credit for all taxes deducted upfront. This will be used to offset all other taxes that would otherwise apply. In practice, what this means is that you'll either extract all (taxed) income as salary or as a dividend and no further tax will be due (whether CT or PAYE/NI taxes or dividend taxes). Other sources of company and personal income will be taxed as normal (VAT FRS profit, other contracts, interest income etc.)

Thinking about this. Look at all the fundamental changes HMRC are making. Do you believe the impact of those is really just £500,000

jamesbrown
27th May 2016, 17:49
Thinking about this. Look at all the fundamental changes HMRC are making. Do you believe the impact of those is really just £500,000

No way. Aside from whatever it costs them, think about the cost in trying to link up procurement/contracts and payroll/HR databases (for the PS body, agent or consultant nearest to the PSC). I mean, purely from an IT POV, let alone the employment law minefield. It isn't going to be easy, and why would anyone bother unless PS work was keeping them afloat? They think this will be sorted in 12 months :laugh One more reason to not bother with contractors at all and just shift to FTC. Like I said, forgive them, for they know not what they've done (as usual).

GB9
31st May 2016, 07:53
Haven't had time for a proper response yet but the one thing that did make me laugh is the 5% blanket expense allowance currently available within ir35. In short, the document states they weren't sure if it should be kept because they didn't want to put an administrative burden on the psc. Yet at the same time they want to use a convoluted tax at source which then gets paid to Ltd Co which then gets a tax credit. And please keep collecting the VAT for us. Talk about disingenuous.

flamel
31st May 2016, 10:39
Talk about disingenuous.

It's HMRC you're talking about - did you expect anything less?

I've already moved out of public sector so I've got private sector experience on my CV before the mass exodus.

I've never seen a FTC that was of any benefit to a contractor compared with going permanent and in my experience, gov't departments have struggled to get people on FTCs - and the same for advertising contract roles at less than the market rate, which they seem to do frequently.

The only way it's going to work for these departments is to re-hire the big consultancy firms, which will cost them a lot.

HMRC will not care a bit about that. The Gov't will not care either. Neither will care about the talent drain.

They will care about their own PR "... Gov't clobbers greedy contractors..." etc. We can then see the machine working in the thread "I read in the Daily Mail"

Fred Bloggs
31st May 2016, 11:32
Today it is the public sector contractors. Tomorrow it will be the private sector will it not? Surely it is the private sector contractors who are the real target, are they not?

bobspud
31st May 2016, 12:10
For a while the mentality at one of my clients was: "It won't matter if we do this to the contractors, because our friends in Cap G or Fujitsu etc will be able to find us nice sheeple to replace all those grumpy contractors"... Then they started to try and find people that could get the right clearances let alone ones that have them already and the panic started to set in. It's amazing how many people work for those big companies that are going to fail clearances because they have criminal records or anti-social habits that even their own firms hadn't noticed...

eek
31st May 2016, 12:16
Today it is the public sector contractors. Tomorrow it will be the private sector will it not? Surely it is the private sector contractors who are the real target, are they not?

Nope. You're average private sector company will play the system to get the person they want, public sector will go for an easy life (i.e. Just list everyone as in ir35).

SimonMac
31st May 2016, 12:32
Today it is the public sector contractors. Tomorrow it will be the private sector will it not? Surely it is the private sector contractors who are the real target, are they not?

Possible, but unlikely, seeing as the crux of this "problem" is the likes of the NHS and BBC getting caught with "freelancers" who have been on the books for years and are part and parcel of the organisation and the backlash that came afterwards

bobspud
31st May 2016, 13:05
Nope. You're average private sector company will play the system to get the person they want, public sector will go for an easy life (i.e. Just list everyone as in ir35).

I wouldn't bet on that. Yes some departments will do the easy thing or talk that talk BUT when they suddenly see the ramifications that will change. In fact I am betting that after the complete cluster cuss that beaker caused when he tried this the last time, there will be far fewer government departments that will be prepared to watch their budgets explode while the treasury are demanding cuts or the collapse of their delivery plans due to the loss of key staff and no easy way to replace them with cleared staff.

By contrast if a Bank gets told declare their contractors inside IR35, for them it will be no worse than an across the board rate cut followed by mass bob importation.

eek
31st May 2016, 13:11
I wouldn't bet on that. Yes some departments will do the easy thing or talk that talk BUT when they suddenly see the ramifications that will change. In fact I am betting that after the complete cluster cuss that beaker caused when he tried this the last time, there will be far fewer government departments that will be prepared to watch their budgets explode while the treasury are demanding cuts or the collapse of their delivery plans due to the loss of key staff and no easy way to replace them with cleared staff.

By contrast if a Bank gets told declare their contractors inside IR35, for them it will be no worse than an across the board rate cut followed by mass bob importation.

The problem there is that if I am any good why would I risk a public sector contract which has been marked as outside scope while there is a risk that HMRC could use me as a Guinea pig. personally I will be walking away regardless of the state of the project if any change occurs in April next year.

Oh and to beat the rush I'm off in September just to really emphasis the issue

LondonManc
31st May 2016, 13:52
I wouldn't bet on that. Yes some departments will do the easy thing or talk that talk BUT when they suddenly see the ramifications that will change. In fact I am betting that after the complete cluster cuss that beaker caused when he tried this the last time, there will be far fewer government departments that will be prepared to watch their budgets explode while the treasury are demanding cuts or the collapse of their delivery plans due to the loss of key staff and no easy way to replace them with cleared staff.

By contrast if a Bank gets told declare their contractors inside IR35, for them it will be no worse than an across the board rate cut followed by mass bob importation.

No worse than?
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Fred Bloggs
31st May 2016, 13:57
Possible, but unlikely, seeing as the crux of this "problem" is the likes of the NHS and BBC getting caught with "freelancers" who have been on the books for years and are part and parcel of the organisation and the backlash that came afterwards
I suppose it will be easier to just gradually hike the dividend tax up to 15 then 20%. Then IR35 wouldn't really matter so much.

flamel
31st May 2016, 14:16
I suppose it will be easier to just gradually hike the dividend tax up to 15 then 20%. Then IR35 wouldn't really matter so much.

When this comes to pass (and it surely will), together with new SDC / IR35 rules, then contracting as an option is effectively dead. Let's face it some of us only do the work we're in for the money - I'd never go perm in my field, far too dull.

In the long term, people will leave the contract market and go perm or abroad, giving rise to a skill shortage, thus driving rates up to the point where it becomes worth it again. It could take a few years though.

Will I be able to live in, say, France if Brexit happens?

If the worst happens and we're locked in with nowhere to go, then I've got no plan B.

bobspud
31st May 2016, 14:50
The problem there is that if I am any good why would I risk a public sector contract which has been marked as outside scope while there is a risk that HMRC could use me as a Guinea pig. personally I will be walking away regardless of the state of the project if any change occurs in April next year.

Oh and to beat the rush I'm off in September just to really emphasis the issue

I wouldn't recommend being lubed up for test cases either. I'm just saying that there are a few months before the death knell and ironically it won't be the contractors that are fighting hardest against the rule standing.

Im already back in the private sector :) looking forward to you joining me :wave:

bobspud
31st May 2016, 14:52
No worse than?
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Yeah thats like saying I only lost 8 quarters of my salary :tantrum:

MarkT
1st June 2016, 07:40
Some of this has already started, I was invited to apply for a Head of PMO role this week which payed £150 a day more than the private sector rate.
Agent said they were having significant issues with placing contractors into public sector roles, even though the private sector was becoming flooded.
The net effect of this will be to drive down private sector rates as the market floods for a few years.

Meanwhile Cap Gemini and KPMG clean up and give directorships to ex-cabinet ministers.

Gaz_M
1st June 2016, 09:47
Sorry to be stupid but what's an FTC?

Also, if 90%+ of contractors walk away from public sector then the private sector will become flooded & the opportunities fewer overnight. Whichever way you look at it, it's just about the end of contracting.

LondonManc
1st June 2016, 09:57
Sorry to be stupid but what's an FTC?

Also, if 90%+ of contractors walk away from public sector then the private sector will become flooded & the opportunities fewer overnight. Whichever way you look at it, it's just about the end of contracting.

FTC = Fixed Term Contract

Most public sector folk are in there because they aren't up for private sector. Why work for £250 a day when you can work for £400?

MoroccanMole
1st June 2016, 09:57
Yeah thats like saying I only lost 8 quarters of my salary :tantrum:

Fixed term contract

bobspud
1st June 2016, 10:14
Sorry to be stupid but what's an FTC?

Also, if 90%+ of contractors walk away from public sector then the private sector will become flooded & the opportunities fewer overnight. Whichever way you look at it, it's just about the end of contracting.

Fixed Term Contract. Its currently an undead half life where the poor sod gets no benefits of being freelance and no employee rights.

We have already been through this process. A few years ago the treasury tried to totally destroy contracting in the Public sector. Yet here we all are...

Most likely thing to happen is that lots of contractors will skip out of public sector for six months or so. The public sector will realise that its in a lot of trouble and the whole thing will be forgotten.

There was always a reason that its hard to get government work without an SC. It can take months to earn one and as a result the pool of resources are well sort after. I witnessed a department try to go directly for ex bank staff and private sector guys as an experiment and the fall out was shocking there were at least 5 people that failed their clearances while I was there (some of them spectacularly) and the security team got totally <pick a word for annoyed>. It almost cost a few guys their jobs.

Imagine being in a position where you have 100+ people on DV clearances that all say I am not renewing. You can't magically find a replacement. it will take months to got through DV normally and once a candidate understands the process quite a few people don't want their wife/significant other to find out that they use strippers,hookers or gamble heavily behind their back. DV can cause divorces.

I expect the support desk people to find themselves inside IR35 as they should have always been. The other roles will be a little more pragmatic. For instance my last government role demanded that I provide my own tools and equipment and provided me the right to carry out work as I saw fit, and a right of substitution subject to clearances. No IR35 issues in that regardless of what HMRC put in unlawful guidance.

bobspud
1st June 2016, 10:19
Most public sector folk are in there because they aren't up for private sector. Why work for £250 a day when you can work for £400?

Actually it turns out that it works the other way... Over the past decade the architecture guys have got their heads together and are more like real architects rather than the dross that gets touted in the private sector.

We chewed up and spat out a bunch of guys from a well known bank because they thought that they were the dogs dangly bits. :suicide:

Watching them go through a formal security review could have been a ticketed event. :rollin:

LondonManc
1st June 2016, 11:12
Actually it turns out that it works the other way... Over the past decade the architecture guys have got their heads together and are more like real architects rather than the dross that gets touted in the private sector.

We chewed up and spat out a bunch of guys from a well known bank because they thought that they were the dogs dangly bits. :suicide:

Watching them go through a formal security review could have been a ticketed event. :rollin:

No comment on banking IT, as much as I'd like to. :tantrum:

Danglekt
2nd June 2016, 11:12
I contract with a private company that receives public funding - I spend a lot of time in meetings with people who work in the public sector, and know quite a few who are contractors.

This is going to have a big impact on them, and potentially on me too - as my currently transferable skill set just got rather less valuable.

What I find hard to stomach is, yes there are some people who are inside IR35 pretending they are not, but there are also some people who are outside who will get caught by this unfairly (including me in the future potentially).

All this will drive is more work on the fixed headcount, who are all public sector lifers, who will get even more behind and everything will grind to a halt, add to that the fact that none of them (even the crap ones) get sacked, have stupidly soft HR teams, pay generous long term sickness rates and huge pension and annual leave costs (35 days leave anyone?)...

It's not going to save very much in terms of true value.

Dammit, I like doing what I do and I'm pretty good at it too - why does someone always need to screw it up :mad:

missinggreenfields
2nd June 2016, 14:12
What I find hard to stomach is, yes there are some people who are inside IR35 pretending they are not, but there are also some people who are outside who will get caught by this unfairly (including me in the future potentially).

It won't inadvertently catch people who are outside - HMRC have been very clear about that, and why wouldn't you trust their word on it? :laugh

eek
2nd June 2016, 16:55
It won't inadvertently catch people who are outside - HMRC have been very clear about that, and why wouldn't you trust their word on it? :laugh

No. I think our fear is that they will explicitly pick a few outside and try and make cases out of them. Which is why anyone sensible is going to run a mile from the public sector for a while...

flamel
2nd June 2016, 17:41
I'm sure I'm not going soft, but I can't help agreeing with eek on this one.

In spite of the mountain of experience I have working in the public sector, I'd have to think twice before working there again.

DaveB
2nd June 2016, 22:16
No. I think our fear is that they will explicitly pick a few outside and try and make cases out of them. Which is why anyone sensible is going to run a mile from the public sector for a while...


I'm sure I'm not going soft, but I can't help agreeing with eek on this one.

In spite of the mountain of experience I have working in the public sector, I'd have to think twice before working there again.

Same here, although I've been a fan of public sector work in the past. Have now bailed out back into the private sector for as Client A. Client B still pubic sector but will see what pans out with that, it's part time and 100% WFH with very little interaction with the client.

Rate isn't as good on this one but it gets a private sector gig back at the top of the CV ready for the next one should the need arise. Will observe developments form the sidelines for now.

northernladuk
2nd June 2016, 22:28
Same here, although I've been a fan of public sector work in the past. Have now bailed out back into the private sector for as Client A. Client B still pubic sector but will see what pans out with that, it's part time and 100% WFH with very little interaction with the client.

Rate isn't as good on this one but it gets a private sector gig back at the top of the CV ready for the next one should the need arise. Will observe developments form the sidelines for now.

I was pleasantly surprised with my public sector gig and managed to wangle myself where I could have been here for quite awhile to come so very dissapointed with all this carry on. I've got some possible options but now they've just changed the procurement methods and clamped down on G Cloud it's gonna be tough to nail.

IPSE
3rd June 2016, 11:48
IPSE are keen to speak with contractors who currently, or regularly undertake public sector contracts to compile case studies that can be deployed in the media. We are looking for information on the extent to which a change in rules would make contractors avoid public sector work.

Ideally we are looking for people willing to go "on the record" and be comfortable with their name and photograph appearing in print. These case studies will also be used to support IPSE's response to the Government consultation. You can reach us at pressoffice@ipse.co.uk

James Gribben
Head of Press & PR

westtester
3rd June 2016, 14:55
I'm working in PS at the moment and have gone through the QDos contract review process and been told I passed. The organisation accepted this and gave me a pass letter. However, we've been informed that revised governance arrangements have come through and all contractors will have to provide 'additional information' by the end of the month or we're out. Don't know what this information is going to be yet. Has anyone else had notice of something along these lines or been told that a QDos contract review is insufficient?

craigy1874
8th June 2016, 15:46
I'm working in PS at the moment and have gone through the QDos contract review process and been told I passed. The organisation accepted this and gave me a pass letter. However, we've been informed that revised governance arrangements have come through and all contractors will have to provide 'additional information' by the end of the month or we're out. Don't know what this information is going to be yet. Has anyone else had notice of something along these lines or been told that a QDos contract review is insufficient?

i've heard of this for some clients in the public sector. Unwilling to accept a professional contract review and want you to apply full PAYE to all contracting income.

Load of utter shite.

northernladuk
8th June 2016, 16:17
Are we talking about the CL1 framework here? You should be safe as you have toprove you are outside using the defunct BETs.. :facepalm:

DaveB
8th June 2016, 16:50
Are we talking about the CL1 framework here? You should be safe as you have toprove you are outside using the defunct BETs.. :facepalm:

Not quite.

You took BET and if you came out as low risk that was it. If you were medium or high you had to then provide additional evidence such as the QDOS review offerings. With the BET's gone the only acceptable evidence is a professional review. Or it was until the HMRC FUD started hitting the department HR fans.

Gomez
9th June 2016, 08:19
I'm working in PS at the moment and have gone through the QDos contract review process and been told I passed. The organisation accepted this and gave me a pass letter. However, we've been informed that revised governance arrangements have come through and all contractors will have to provide 'additional information' by the end of the month or we're out. Don't know what this information is going to be yet. Has anyone else had notice of something along these lines or been told that a QDos contract review is insufficient?

I'm in same position as you right now. Just been through org audit and submitted QDOS review which was a pass. They wrote back and said they were happy. Been told this week to expect a letter (due tomorrow I believe) that's going to ask for more info. Rumour is that we need to supply evidence of PAYE and NIC paid for the contract period. If this happens, I will have to show no PAYE or NIC paid............ I don't want to get too nervous about all this until the letter hits. Watch this space! Some other vicious rumour going round also is that the MOD are bringing forward the legislation on IR35 that will apply elsewhere in the public sector next April. I don't believe that however. For info, I'm within the CL/1 framework.

eek
9th June 2016, 08:23
Start looking. The only way to resolve this mess is to make it clear what the consequences for project delivery will be.

Fred Bloggs
9th June 2016, 08:46
Isn't information on personal tax confidential and nobody except the revenue can request to see it? In my case, I pay no salary from MyCo, so my response would have to be £0.

eek
9th June 2016, 08:58
Isn't information on personal tax confidential and nobody except the revenue can request to see it? In my case, I pay no salary from MyCo, so my response would have to be £0.

Yep but most contractors are muppets who will just do what's asked.
Most hr drones don't know what's legal / illegal so will ask unless called out and won't care if they are. After all the others have provided the information, you are just in the awkward squad.

Hence my advice would be find something else, then cite the request as a breach of contract and start the new private sector contract

Qdos Contractor
9th June 2016, 12:27
The Qdos public sector pack was designed to be in line with the Procurement Policy Note (PPN) – Tax Arrangements of Public Appointees, which states; “The worker should be able to provide evidence of a contract review to say that they are outside the scope of the IR35 legislation at the 6 month point.” We back this up with a review of the working practices for a complete overview of the contractors status.

If the organisation are asking for more evidence than this, I would ask them how this marries up to PPN.

Jon

northernladuk
9th June 2016, 12:50
Any views on the consultation document Jon? I see you are mentioned as one of the organisations consulted at the bottom.

westtester
9th June 2016, 12:56
The MoD seem to be using some updated governance, has this been made available anywhere?

northernladuk
9th June 2016, 13:08
The MoD seem to be using some updated governance, has this been made available anywhere?

MoD making governance process available to the public. That's not going to happen is it surely?

westtester
9th June 2016, 13:19
MoD making governance process available to the public. That's not going to happen is it surely?

If it relates to procurement, I hoped that it might have been circulated among suppliers, agencies, whoever so they can be aware of the new rules :confused:

I guess I'm impatient and want to know what the hell is going on before I check my Inbox tomorrow morning and have the worst confirmed.

DaveB
9th June 2016, 14:48
If it relates to procurement, I hoped that it might have been circulated among suppliers, agencies, whoever so they can be aware of the new rules :confused:

I guess I'm impatient and want to know what the hell is going on before I check my Inbox tomorrow morning and have the worst confirmed.

If it has been it would be to the List X community only, at least for now. Don't expect anyone to tell you anything.

westtester
13th June 2016, 07:37
Looks like the MoD are ignoring the IR35 consultation and applying the new rules immediately. We have to provide proof of full tax and NI paid on payments received or contracts will be terminated and details passed to HMRC. Independent contract reviews are no longer accepted as proof of compliance.

DotasScandal
13th June 2016, 08:35
Looks like the MoD are ignoring the IR35 consultation and applying the new rules immediately.

Lol. I don't even know why they bother with these mock "consultations" anymore. Who are they fooling? It's just plain silly now.

Ketto
13th June 2016, 08:53
Are you guys agency or direct with MOD?

mudskipper
13th June 2016, 08:54
Looks like the MoD are ignoring the IR35 consultation and applying the new rules immediately. We have to provide proof of full tax and NI paid on payments received or contracts will be terminated and details passed to HMRC. Independent contract reviews are no longer accepted as proof of compliance.

The proposal in the consultation is that the agency (or client if you're direct) will use the ESI tool to determine IR35 status, then deduct the tax and NI before paying yourCo the remainder.

Is this requirement coming from the agent or client?

If you're an IPSE member, please do respond to James's request above (http://forums.contractoruk.com/future-contracting/114703-public-sector-ir35-consultation-launched-7.html#post2262039) with your details.

malvolio
13th June 2016, 09:06
The proposal in the consultation is that the agency (or client if you're direct) will use the ESI tool to determine IR35 status, then deduct the tax and NI before paying yourCo the remainder.

Is this requirement coming from the agent or client?

If you're an IPSE member, please do respond to James's request above with your details.
And if you're not (in which case, why not?!) I'm sure mudskipper will do it for you anyway... :tongue

westtester
13th June 2016, 09:20
The proposal in the consultation is that the agency (or client if you're direct) will use the ESI tool to determine IR35 status, then deduct the tax and NI before paying yourCo the remainder.

Is this requirement coming from the agent or client?

If you're an IPSE member, please do respond to James's request above with your details.

Apparently this is coming direct from the MoD and applies to all off-payroll appointees. We have to show that we've already paid full tax and NI on monies received regardless of any previous contract reviews, or indicate what deemed payment will be made in future. Unless your contract is 6 months or less in which case these rules don't apply.

I'm aware there is an ongoing consultation in place but this isn't being considered here. We seem to be defaulted inside IR35.

GB9
13th June 2016, 09:27
Apparently this is coming direct from the MoD and applies to all off-payroll appointees. We have to show that we've already paid full tax and NI on monies received regardless of any previous contract reviews, or indicate what deemed payment will be made in future. Unless your contract is 6 months or less in which case these rules don't apply.

I'm aware there is an ongoing consultation in place but this isn't being considered here. We seem to be defaulted inside IR35.

Does your contract allow this?

MrMarkyMark
13th June 2016, 09:29
Apparently this is coming direct from the MoD and applies to all off-payroll appointees. We have to show that we've already paid full tax and NI on monies received regardless of any previous contract reviews, or indicate what deemed payment will be made in future. Unless your contract is 6 months or less in which case these rules don't apply.

I'm aware there is an ongoing consultation in place but this isn't being considered here. We seem to be defaulted inside IR35.

Hopefully you are all going to walk out ASAP.

I'm sure the Indian outsourcers that replace you all will pay the correct amount of tax :suicide:

northernladuk
13th June 2016, 09:40
Apparently this is coming direct from the MoD and applies to all off-payroll appointees. We have to show that we've already paid full tax and NI on monies received regardless of any previous contract reviews, or indicate what deemed payment will be made in future. Unless your contract is 6 months or less in which case these rules don't apply.

I'm aware there is an ongoing consultation in place but this isn't being considered here. We seem to be defaulted inside IR35.

And you are still there?

westtester
13th June 2016, 09:42
And you are still there?

Not for much longer, like pretty much all the contractors here.

northernladuk
13th June 2016, 09:43
Hopefully you are all going to walk out ASAP.

I'm sure the Indian outsourcers that replace you all will pay the correct amount of tax :suicide:

Doubt that will happen in the Public Sector..... That said reading the consultation even they are going to struggle with this one as per one of the examples where everyone in the consultancy supplied has to be tested.

MrMarkyMark
13th June 2016, 09:47
And you are still there?

Well, exactly, especially if they are going to look at past stuff.

This bit interested me, looks like they are trying to isolate BOS contractors?


Unless your contract is 6 months or less in which case these rules don't apply.

northernladuk
13th June 2016, 10:00
Are you guys agency or direct with MOD?

Direct? With PS?? <giggle>

Ketto
13th June 2016, 10:01
Why the giggles? Never done it myself but I know plenty who have.

Gomez
13th June 2016, 10:14
Are you guys agency or direct with MOD?

MOD - CL/1 - Agency - Ltd

Not good reading this.

DotasScandal
13th June 2016, 10:44
Well, exactly, especially if they are going to look at past stuff.
This bit interested me, looks like they are trying to isolate BOS contractors?

Gosh...God forbid they just let people work, isn't it??
Really can't see the point of contracting in the UK in 2016. Private sector= pray your contract lasts and take the odd 10-20% rate cut when your client feels like it. Public sector = this sh*t now.
Seriously...why bother?

Gomez
13th June 2016, 11:14
Looks like the MoD are ignoring the IR35 consultation and applying the new rules immediately. We have to provide proof of full tax and NI paid on payments received or contracts will be terminated and details passed to HMRC. Independent contract reviews are no longer accepted as proof of compliance.

It appears to be even worse than applying the new rules as the letter I have had implies that the gig is inside IR35 (although doesn't explicitly state this). I thought the new rules would mean that it was the intermediary closest to the contractor's LTD that will determine the status of the engagement? I doubt the Agency my LTD has the contract with even know about these 'letters' yet!

GB9
13th June 2016, 12:57
It appears to be even worse than applying the new rules as the letter I have had implies that the gig is inside IR35 (although doesn't explicitly state this). I thought the new rules would mean that it was the intermediary closest to the contractor's LTD that will determine the status of the engagement? I doubt the Agency my LTD has the contract with even know about these 'letters' yet!

From your earlier posts my understanding was that Qdos had passed it as clear. I that correct or not?

If so, there's nothing to stop the MOD changing that but they would need to change the contract and / or working practices. To change the contract they would need to give notice. If they are changing the WP then get clarity over how and from when.

And get some proper advice I. E. Not just us.

westtester
13th June 2016, 13:42
From your earlier posts my understanding was that Qdos had passed it as clear. I that correct or not?

If so, there's nothing to stop the MOD changing that but they would need to change the contract and / or working practices. To change the contract they would need to give notice. If they are changing the WP then get clarity over how and from when.

And get some proper advice I. E. Not just us.

QDos did pass the contract but it's been stated that an independent contract review is no longer acceptable. Without any understanding of what constitutes alternative suitable evidence for being outside of IR35, I'm assuming they are putting everyone inside. If the QDos product is no longer suitable, I can't see how else we could prove that we are outside? AFAIK the contract and working practices are unchanged, it just seems that MoD are riding roughshod all over the existing arrangement.

northernladuk
13th June 2016, 13:58
I'd guess this is going to change QDOS's PS insurance solution and it won't be valid if you already have it.

westtester
13th June 2016, 14:28
Out of interest, is there anyone affected by this who isn't working for UKHO?

Gomez
13th June 2016, 14:45
From your earlier posts my understanding was that Qdos had passed it as clear. I that correct or not?

If so, there's nothing to stop the MOD changing that but they would need to change the contract and / or working practices. To change the contract they would need to give notice. If they are changing the WP then get clarity over how and from when.

And get some proper advice I. E. Not just us.

Yes QDOS have said contract is outside. I didn't actually go ahead with the working practices review although I'm pretty certain that would also indicate being outside IR35. I will be seeking some advice although not sure where yet. I'm probably in a fortunate situation in that I haven't been at the client 6 months yet and the letter states that it will only apply to contractors who have been at the client longer than this. The letter states however that it will apply if I enter into any contract extension.

They seem to be making things up as they go along. I was fully expecting things to change next April but this is a bit of a bombshell.

westtester
15th June 2016, 07:39
It's actually impossible to comply with the new requirements. By assuming everyone is inside IR35, despite providing assurance letters to the contrary, every contractor must leave by the deadline or face being reported to HMRC. And that's exactly what's happening. It's a disaster for the organisation.

eek
15th June 2016, 07:44
It's actually impossible to comply with the new requirements. By assuming everyone is inside IR35, despite providing assurance letters to the contrary, every contractor must leave by the deadline or face being reported to HMRC. And that's exactly what's happening. It's a disaster for the organisation.

No. It's a disaster for the contractors, all projects the contractors are working on and eventually the hr department. The organisation itself is going to reap exactly what it deserves by letting hr implement crackpot schemes in a unitary and ill thought out way

It will however provide us with a great example as to why HMRC's grand plan won't work

bobspud
15th June 2016, 10:34
It's actually impossible to comply with the new requirements. By assuming everyone is inside IR35, despite providing assurance letters to the contrary, every contractor must leave by the deadline or face being reported to HMRC. And that's exactly what's happening. It's a disaster for the organisation.

Dont worry UKHO are used to this. I was there when the last lot of guidelines came out. They couldn't have been happier to see everyone leave. All the more space for their uncle brother cousin to fill...

jamesbrown
6th July 2016, 08:47
Front page of the FT online this morning:

https://next.ft.com/content/fe83a5da-41e2-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

Surely a coincidence given all the speculation about CT reductions. :laugh

missinggreenfields
6th July 2016, 08:54
Front page of the FT online this morning:

https://next.ft.com/content/fe83a5da-41e2-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

Surely a coincidence given all the speculation about CT reductions. :laugh

Still peddling the 90% lie. I'd like to see Osborne asked why he has let things get so bad, because when Alexander did his review, he found the vast majoirty of public sector contracts were handled correctly. But that would require a journalist to understand that we arent tax avoiding scum all the time :tumble:

jamesbrown
6th July 2016, 09:10
But that would require a journalist to understand that we arent tax avoiding scum all the time :tumble:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story etc.

DotasScandal
7th July 2016, 14:13
Still peddling the 90% lie. I'd like to see Osborne asked why he has let things get so bad, because when Alexander did his review, he found the vast majoirty of public sector contracts were handled correctly. But that would require a journalist to understand that we arent tax avoiding scum all the time :tumble:

Maybe someone from here would be willing to educate Ms. Rovnick?
Yes, a lot of journos are clueless, but bitching about it without attempting to present them an alternative view is not constructive.
Surprisingly, some of them are eager to learn.

cojak
7th July 2016, 14:33
Maybe someone from here would be willing to educate Ms. Rovnick?
Yes, a lot of journos are clueless, but bitching about it without attempting to present them an alternative view is not constructive.
Surprisingly, some of them are eager to learn.

I thought that is what IPSE is doing?

eek
7th July 2016, 14:43
I thought that is what IPSE is doing?

Given the article and the person quoted within it there are a few things there where I thought WTF regarding certain choice of words.....

malvolio
7th July 2016, 15:32
Ms Rovnick is acting editor at thr FT. Don't suppose she's a freelance, do you... :😝

DotasScandal
8th July 2016, 08:46
I thought that is what IPSE is doing?

:laugh

eek
8th July 2016, 09:01
:laugh

+1... Reading the FT article I'm not 100% IPSE know exactly what the arguments are and what the problems will be....

malvolio
8th July 2016, 09:29
+1... Reading the FT article I'm not 100% IPSE know exactly what the arguments are and what the problems will be....
The problem is primarily a journalist working for a paper specialising in financial affairs who has no idea of finances (can't comment on affairs...) and will not be told the difference between corporate and personal income. Work out how to get that message across to the press and HMG and you'll be a hero...

Meanwhile take no notice of that particular article, it's largely meaningless. :wink

WordIsBond
8th July 2016, 11:00
The problem is primarily a journalist working for a paper specialising in financial affairs who has no idea of finances (can't comment on affairs...) and will not be told the difference between corporate and personal income. Work out how to get that message across to the press and HMG and you'll be a hero...

Meanwhile take no notice of that particular article, it's largely meaningless. :wink
You yourself stated why it isn't meaningless -- because it propagates the confused messages upon which the decision makers (HMG, HMRC) are acting.

DotasScandal
8th July 2016, 11:13
+1... Reading the FT article I'm not 100% IPSE know exactly what the arguments are and what the problems will be....

These days IPSE seems more concerned with collecting membership fees and distinguishing "freelancers of the year" - and other such silly, meaningless PR stuff.
When it comes to hard lobbying on core topics, in defense of the livelihood of its members, curiously IPSE seems nowhere to be found.

Happy to be proven wrong.

eek
8th July 2016, 11:22
These days IPSE seems more concerned with collecting membership fees and distinguishing "freelancers of the year" - and other such silly, meaningless PR stuff.
When it comes to hard lobbying on core topics, in defense of the livelihood of its members, curiously IPSE seems nowhere to be found.

Happy to be proven wrong.

your cynicism seems almost as large as my own.

I will repeat my advice from earlier in this thread, plan your escape route from contracting now before the stampede begins

mudskipper
8th July 2016, 12:33
These days IPSE seems more concerned with collecting membership fees and distinguishing "freelancers of the year" - and other such silly, meaningless PR stuff.
When it comes to hard lobbying on core topics, in defense of the livelihood of its members, curiously IPSE seems nowhere to be found.

Happy to be proven wrong.

Well it's difficult to 'prove' what effect lobbying and campaigning has, but if you read the IPSE forums (member only content) just yesterday it was announced that IPSE won 'BIS Sector Representation of the Year' for the efforts in preventing T&S withdrawal from affecting ltd co contractors operating outside of IR35.

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/trade-association-forum-best-practice-awards.111513

There is also a thread inviting people to participate in a round table with HRMC on the public sector proposals.

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/ipse-roundtable-19-july-on-ir35-in-the-public-sector.111511

These are core topics for the contractor community. So what is IPSE not doing that you think it should be?

eek
8th July 2016, 12:54
Well it's difficult to 'prove' what effect lobbying and campaigning has, but if you read the IPSE forums (member only content) just yesterday it was announced that IPSE won 'BIS Sector Representation of the Year' for the efforts in preventing T&S withdrawal from affecting ltd co contractors operating outside of IR35.

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/trade-association-forum-best-practice-awards.111513

There is also a thread inviting people to participate in a round table with HRMC on the public sector proposals.

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/ipse-roundtable-19-july-on-ir35-in-the-public-sector.111511

These are core topics for the contractor community. So what is IPSE not doing that you think it should be?

I hope to God you are vetting the contractors off to an HMRC round table - been there, done that, sat cringing whilst wishing I could kick people under the table to STFU...

As for the T&S award - if you say so..... :smokin - we can argue the point but, even though I say so myself, the document I sent with arguments and suggestions does rather match the end result and reasons given for said result...

ChampionChris
12th July 2016, 10:51
HMRC research understand the implications for employers and engagers if they were given responsibility for operating the intermediaries legislation

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intermediaries-legislation-qualitative-research

eek
13th July 2016, 09:50
Int People
Government Departments 4 6
Public Sector 7 10

So they interviewed 6 people in 4 departments and expect that to be statistically accurate :rollin:

They don't even seem to have spoken to the appropriate people in their own department who have been tasked in removing their dependencies on the larger outsourcing companies and how they are achieving those requirements... :rollin:

Fred Bloggs
13th July 2016, 09:57
These days IPSE seems more concerned with collecting membership fees and distinguishing "freelancers of the year" - and other such silly, meaningless PR stuff.
When it comes to hard lobbying on core topics, in defense of the livelihood of its members, curiously IPSE seems nowhere to be found.

Happy to be proven wrong.Not to mention developing partnership relationships involving non disclosed kick backs from possibly the UK's worst and certainly one of the most expensive contractor service providers.

malvolio
13th July 2016, 11:44
Not to mention developing partnership relationships involving non disclosed kick backs from possibly the UK's worst and certainly one of the most expensive contractor service providers.

There are 78 accountants on their supplier list and 16 umbrella services providers come to that. None is any more significant than any other. But if it makes you happy to sling accusations around, who am I to complain. :tongue

eek
13th July 2016, 11:48
There are 78 accountants on their supplier list and 16 umbrella services providers come to that. None is any more significant than any other. But if it makes you happy to sling accusations around, who am I to complain. :tongue

The IPSE don't send emails round promoting those 78 though. They have however sent emails selling the "virtues" of the one being talked about...

And my opinion of that particular firm is known both here and on IPSE....

Fred Bloggs
13th July 2016, 12:17
There are 78 accountants on their supplier list and 16 umbrella services providers come to that. None is any more significant than any other. But if it makes you happy to sling accusations around, who am I to complain. :tongueEpic fail. There is only one partner firm. They must pay the most, but we'll never know because the question doesn't get answered.

malvolio
13th July 2016, 12:28
Epic fail. There is only one partner firm. They must pay the most, but we'll never know because the question doesn't get answered.
Have you asked? Or are you simply having a problem understanding commercial confidentiality? And the point that you have missed is that no members are required to use them, nor do they get promoted over any other of the potential suppliers.

But as I said, if it makes you happy to make pointless accusations, do carry on. :smile

eek
13th July 2016, 12:45
Have you asked? Or are you simply having a problem understanding commercial confidentiality? And the point that you have missed is that no members are required to use them, nor do they get promoted over any other of the potential suppliers.

But as I said, if it makes you happy to make pointless accusations, do carry on. :smile

Exactly what role or purpose do you serve in IPSE now? You have always been awfully good in mis (over) representing exactly what your relationship with IPSE is (to the annoyance of various IPSE board members I may add)...

And its clear on the IPSE forum that there is a commercial relationship between IPSE and said accountancy firm - terms that were confidential and therefore could not be discussed.....

Fred Bloggs
13th July 2016, 13:08
Have you asked? Or are you simply having a problem understanding commercial confidentiality? And the point that you have missed is that no members are required to use them, nor do they get promoted over any other of the potential suppliers.

But as I said, if it makes you happy to make pointless accusations, do carry on. :smile
1 Yes, I have asked.
2 No, I understand confidentiality but in a member owned (effectively a) cooperative, the management should feel they can share any information with members when requested in a member only area. Indeed, they should be bound to in the interest of total transparency.
3 Correct. I wonder how many members use them? I wonder how many of the management use them? I wonder why the management feel they are deserving of a special "partner" status?
4 Yes they do. The recent mail shot is a case in point.

I fear it is you that fails to understand, not me.

teapot418
13th July 2016, 14:03
The IPSE don't send emails round promoting those 78 though. They have however sent emails selling the "virtues" of the one being talked about...

And my opinion of that particular firm is known both here and on IPSE....

This one?

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/ipse-delighted-announce-new-accountancy-partnership

I'm a customer and very happy with their service.

eek
13th July 2016, 14:09
This one?

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/ipse-delighted-announce-new-accountancy-partnership

I'm a customer and very happy with their service.

Nope, nowt wrong with intouch albeit they have lost a few decent staff over the years.

This one begins with B is based in Warrington and used to service Managed Service Companies before HMRC put the kaboosh on MSCs....

They also have some rather interesting sidelines within their umbrella businesses that I think may come back to bite those that promote them...

This is of course utterly off-topic here as was IPSE claiming glory for things I don't believe they had any impact on....

Fred Bloggs
13th July 2016, 14:40
Nope, nowt wrong with intouch albeit they have lost a few decent staff over the years.

This one begins with B is based in Warrington and used to service Managed Service Companies before HMRC put the kaboosh on MSCs....

They also have some rather interesting sidelines within their umbrella businesses that I think may come back to bite those that promote them...

This is of course utterly off-topic here as was IPSE claiming glory for things I don't believe they had any impact on....You see, that's the problem with a lack of openness and transparency in an organisation that declares "For one, for all" as its strap line. It directly feeds into speculation, whether warranted or not.

mudskipper
13th July 2016, 16:29
Epic fail. There is only one partner firm.

You are mistaken. There is more than one accountancy partner.



This is of course utterly off-topic here as was IPSE claiming glory for things I don't believe they had any impact on....

You are entitled to your beliefs.

Fred Bloggs
13th July 2016, 17:00
You are mistaken. There is more than one accountancy partner.You are of course correct. There's now two, I checked a while ago on the website. When the second one was agreed I don't know, but there doesn't seem to have been the fanfare that accompanied the first one. I guess they just didn't pay as much so didn't get the full monty.

eek
13th July 2016, 17:44
You are mistaken. There is more than one accountancy partner.



You are entitled to your beliefs.

I also said it was offtopic here, yet you commented on it....

In other news wait for the introduction of a new Exchequer and watch for this entire plan be kicked into the long grass :smokin:

elpato
14th July 2016, 08:37
I also said it was offtopic here, yet you commented on it....

In other news wait for the introduction of a new Exchequer and watch for this entire plan be kicked into the long grass :smokin:

Got to admit I don't know much about Hammond - do we think the IR35/dividend shafting continue to get worse, or will the can be kicked down the road for another 5 years?

eek
14th July 2016, 08:50
Got to admit I don't know much about Hammond - do we think the IR35/dividend shafting continue to get worse, or will the can be kicked down the road for another 5 years?

This is nowt to do with Hammond. Tax collection like this belongs to the Financial Secretary which I suspect won't be Gauke anymore..

Plus management in HMRC are screaming after it was pointed out to them what the consequences of this policy will be to their delivery.... Already some clueful people have refused renewals....

MarkT
14th July 2016, 15:38
This is nowt to do with Hammond. Tax collection like this belongs to the Financial Secretary which I suspect won't be Gauke anymore..

Plus management in HMRC are screaming after it was pointed out to them what the consequences of this policy will be to their delivery.... Already some clueful people have refused renewals....

PCG flags IR35 concerns to 'Question Time' panel
by Richard Powell at 14:05 11/02/02 (News on IR35)
The Professional Contractors Group highlighted the damaging effects of IR35 on the UK's flexible workforce at a recent 'Question Time' seminar for the recruitment industry at the Institute of Directors.
The 'Question Time' panel featured: Lord Haskins, Chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force; Philip Hammond MP, Opposition spokesman for Trade and Industry; Patience Wheatcroft, City Editor at The Times; Richard Donkin, Employment Correspondent at the Financial Times and Ann Swain, Chief Executive of ATSCo.

The panel came under scrutiny from a senior group of delegates from the top 100 recruitment agencies in the UK, as well as industry representatives.

Mr Hammond said: "If the workforce is to become more flexible we will have to start supporting individual workers to manage and drive their own training. If people spend a small amount of time at each business, then move on, it would be unrealistic to expect them to invest substantial sums in training them. We have to facilitate and support individuals to treat their skills as part of the equipment that they use for their daily work. They have to maintain and upgrade their skills routinely and I think we should support them via the Employment Bill and tax system."

westtester
15th July 2016, 08:28
Looks like Gauke is out, doesn't say who's in yet.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/financial-secretary-to-the-treasury
(https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/financial-secretary-to-the-treasury)

mudskipper
15th July 2016, 08:34
Looks like Gauke is out, doesn't say who's in yet.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/financial-secretary-to-the-treasury
(https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/financial-secretary-to-the-treasury)

He's now chief Secretary to the Treasury

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointment-july-2016-chief-secretary-to-the-treasury

westtester
15th July 2016, 08:42
He's now chief Secretary to the Treasury

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointment-july-2016-chief-secretary-to-the-treasury

Aww shit.

mudskipper
16th July 2016, 13:16
Looks like Gauke is out, doesn't say who's in yet.


Jane Ellison

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24719/jane_ellison/battersea

jamesbrown
19th July 2016, 12:02
This bodes well :laugh. Methinks that the mechanism invented to deal with this (and it does need to be dealt with) will not spare legitimate contractors. Some sort of threshold hourly/daily rate has been suggested before, but it seems likely to be bundled with wider reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/19/hermes-couriers-low-pay-national-living-wage-self-employed

Autumn Statement perhaps. Can't wait :eyes

Hobosapien
19th July 2016, 12:30
This bodes well :laugh. Methinks that the mechanism invented to deal with this (and it does need to be dealt with) will not spare legitimate contractors. Some sort of threshold hourly/daily rate has been suggested before, but it seems likely to be bundled with wider reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/19/hermes-couriers-low-pay-national-living-wage-self-employed

Autumn Statement perhaps. Can't wait :eyes


Sounds like the case re Hermes is more FTC and fake self-employed (another form of outsourcing) rather than agency temps they could legitimately use for short term cover when their permies are off sick or on holiday, or during exceptionally busy periods such as the run up to crimbo.

Though depends how wide they cast the net as to whether us contractors will also be in the firing line. :eyes

malvolio
19th July 2016, 12:31
This bodes well :laugh. Methinks that the mechanism invented to deal with this (and it does need to be dealt with) will not spare legitimate contractors. Some sort of threshold hourly/daily rate has been suggested before, but it seems likely to be bundled with wider reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/19/hermes-couriers-low-pay-national-living-wage-self-employed

Autumn Statement perhaps. Can't wait :eyesI do love an optimist...

jamesbrown
19th July 2016, 13:24
I do love an optimist...

:laugh Fair point.

I'm not someone who thinks there's zero value in lobbying - on the contrary - but the broader context is tough, and the new Gov't is a partially known quantity with some fairly grand rhetoric. I guess we'll be watching IPSE, but it's tough to measure success when the counterfactual is unknown...

jamesbrown
19th July 2016, 13:27
Sounds like the case re Hermes is more FTC and fake self-employed (another form of outsourcing) rather than agency temps they could legitimately use for short term cover when their permies are off sick or on holiday, or during exceptionally busy periods such as the run up to crimbo.

Though depends how wide they cast the net as to whether us contractors will also be in the firing line. :eyes

Absolutely, there's always been a fairly clearcut (IMO) distinction between the exploitation of low-paid workers and contracting more generally (whether inside or outside IR35). There are clearer/cleaner opportunities to address the former than the latter, but whether they'll be taken or used as a smokescreen for wider "reform", I guess we'll see.

eek
19th July 2016, 14:14
:laugh Fair point.

I'm not someone who thinks there's zero value in lobbying - on the contrary - but the broader context is tough, and the new Gov't is a partially known quantity with some fairly grand rhetoric. I guess we'll be watching IPSE, but it's tough to measure success when the counterfactual is unknown...

I remember spending a lot of time last September having very interesting chats with senior union reps..... It's why I really liked the minimum x times living wage approach as it solves their problems without really impacting us (oh answers large parts of the IR35 questions)..

Hey ho - permie off I go*....

* Actually I'm going the other way and setting up a consultancy but thats only because I nowadays make my money fixing the screw ups the consultancies have already created....

jamesbrown
19th July 2016, 14:46
I remember spending a lot of time last September having very interesting chats with senior union reps..... It's why I really liked the minimum x times living wage approach as it solves their problems without really impacting us (oh answers large parts of the IR35 questions)..

Hey ho - permie off I go*....

* Actually I'm going the other way and setting up a consultancy but thats only because I nowadays make my money fixing the screw ups the consultancies have already created....

Yep, I think it's worthy of further consideration as it's a somewhat standalone problem. There are downsides though (many small businesses start with very limited funds), so it would need to be somewhat more sophisticated (e.g. focused on particular sectors/occupations where this is prevalent).

On your latter points, that's the only concrete way to avoid a sudden deflation of the contracting bubble, if and when it finally happens. Best to plan now. That being said, if they do deflate it, I don't see them "making the best" of the EU ref result, so I continue to be moderately optimistic, despite some of my posts above :laugh

eek
19th July 2016, 14:59
Yep, I think it's worthy of further consideration as it's a somewhat standalone problem. There are downsides though (many small businesses start with very limited funds), so it would need to be somewhat more sophisticated (e.g. focused on particular sectors/occupations where this is prevalent).

On your latter points, that's the only concrete way to avoid a sudden deflation of the contracting bubble, if and when it finally happens. Best to plan now. That being said, if they do deflate it, I don't see them "making the best" of the EU ref result, so I continue to be moderately optimistic, despite some of my posts above :laugh

The thing is it's not a funds issue (only someone peddling an FLC would suggest that). The issue here is companies reducing their costs by pretending their staff are self employed and the only fix for that is the simple statement -hourly / daily rates below x times living wage have to be paid paye.

That solves the problem every Union wants solved in a clear cut simple way and avoids the ir35 = no expenses issue that we ended up with last year. It also means that those people will need to be paid either directly or via agency / umbrella which is one of the things both the unions and HMRC want.

Yes it may throw a few contractors out in the early stages of their careers (but to be blunt you shouldn't start contracting until you offer value and people are willing to pay for it). But it also then leaves a very limited number of specialists who earn well above the minimum wage - and that allows proper discussions to be had regarding us now the bigger issue has been fixed by laws that are easy to follow and check...

jamesbrown
19th July 2016, 15:14
The thing is it's not a funds issue (only someone peddling an FLC would suggest that). The issue here is companies reducing their costs by pretending their staff are self employed and the only fix for that is the simple statement -hourly / daily rates below x times living wage have to be paid paye.

That solves the problem every Union wants solved in a clear cut simple way and avoids the ir35 = no expenses issue that we ended up with last year. It also means that those people will need to be paid either directly or via agency / umbrella which is one of the things both the unions and HMRC want.

Yes it may throw a few contractors out in the early stages of their careers (but to be blunt you shouldn't start contracting until you offer value and people are willing to pay for it). But it also then leaves a very limited number of specialists who earn well above the minimum wage - and that allows proper discussions to be had regarding us now the bigger issue has been fixed by laws that are easy to follow and check...

It is insofar as a non-contracting business may legitimately decide to pay its (not formally employed) directors less than NMW. Also, any simple rule needs to be difficult to circumvent. Could the employer conceive of a payment mechanism (e.g. per parcel) that circumvents the mechanism to which the law applies (per hour/day)? So, I agree with the principle, but the implementation is never that straightforward.

eek
19th July 2016, 15:34
Could the employer conceive of a payment mechanism (e.g. per parcel) that circumvents the mechanism to which the law applies (per hour/day)?

Isn't that the entire point of the Hermes complaint... Their workers are self employed paid per a parcel which in theory more than matches the minimum wage but in reality (as deliveries take longer than the time suggested) makes receiving the minimum wage almost impossible - which is why I think you will find that any wage requirements will have to be explicitly separated.

eek
19th July 2016, 15:38
It is insofar as a non-contracting business may legitimately decide to pay its (not formally employed) directors less than NMW.

I think that is already covered by the agency payment reports that need to go to HMRC... The agency sends a report stating that my company receives £800 a day for the services of eek - no need to investigate further, cheapo umbrella receives £75 for the services of Mrs Potts a cleaner - check paye records for Mrs Potts income....

MrMarkyMark
19th July 2016, 15:44
Isn't that the entire point of the Hermes complaint... Their workers are self employed paid per a parcel which in theory more than matches the minimum wage but in reality (as deliveries take longer than the time suggested) makes receiving the minimum wage almost impossible - which is why I think you will find that any wage requirements will have to be explicitly separated.

This. and they have all the way they penalise the staff, make them arrive early unpaid, to grab a few sheckles back.

The Mike Ashley business model :eyes

jamesbrown
19th July 2016, 16:11
Isn't that the entire point of the Hermes complaint...

That's precisely my point. Unless this is addressed in an industry-specific way, it will either be too easy to circumvent or too broad in application. Remember that most businesses are not contracting businesses. You don't want a drafting that impacts a bunch of small businesses that sell trivial amounts of goods or services through a self-employed structure. It would be simpler to legislate against self employment in the few industries/roles where there is widespread abuse.

eek
19th July 2016, 21:09
Interestingly Uber is off to an employment tribunal tomorrow

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/uber-drivers-court-tribunal-self-employed-uk-employment-law

MrMarkyMark
19th July 2016, 21:14
Interestingly Uber is off to an employment tribunal tomorrow

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/uber-drivers-court-tribunal-self-employed-uk-employment-law

Saw that...............I believe Sports Direct started something and we will see more of these.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/no-phones-low-pay-sent-home-purple-hair-life-zero-hours-contract

youngguy
26th July 2016, 06:52
article

eek
26th July 2016, 06:56
Nice and cheery (not).

Confirms what I've heard though..

youngguy
26th July 2016, 07:06
Nice and cheery (not).

Confirms what I've heard though..

Not a huge surprise , but if this is correct it begs the Q why HMRC even pretended to want to consult !

Don't worry though, IPSE will be along in a month when it is all too late ......

eek
26th July 2016, 07:16
Nice to see that even those who should know things don't


HMRC has also confirmed that contractors deemed to be within IR35 will be taxed as employees subject to a deemed payment calculation. However, as PRISM CEO Crawford Temple highlighted, for a contractor engager or agency to implement this method would pose problems in the form of contractor expenses and pension contributions.

As you are subject to IR35 - there won't be any expenses bar none-standard circumstances....

WordIsBond
26th July 2016, 07:31
Nice to see that even those who should know things don't

As you are subject to IR35 - there won't be any expenses bar none-standard circumstances....
IR35 allows for 5% expenses, doesn't it?

eek
26th July 2016, 07:44
IR35 allows for 5% expenses, doesn't it?

We don't know if the new regime would....

youngguy
26th July 2016, 07:50
We don't know if the new regime would....

So we don't know what the tool is that may put us inside, nor the % we will be hit for tax and (possibly) expenses.

For now I hope PS contractors are all refusing to renew. HMRC won't care of course,but depts are going to have a tough few months recruiting and retaining interim staff.

I can't wait for the final model/calcs that show exactly what the hit will be (let's not forget most will pay more personal tax as they will need to draw more cash out for expenses etc).

difficulttimes
26th July 2016, 08:08
My concern would be if you currently have a contract and it goes over into the new tax year.. what happens when you take this online tool and you are inside IR35 (which I'm sure it will be set up to ensure that 99% are!). Do they apply retrospective tax collection for the previous months on that contract. Sounds like alll of us should make a run for it before April

Hobosapien
26th July 2016, 09:05
Shirley it would be for new contracts from next April.

Not sure if or how renewals of existing contracts may be affected after that date. It's possible the renewal acceptance will require a termination of the old contract arrangements and welcome to the new world with a new contract. All guess work until they decide the specifics of what kind of mess they want to pretend is workable.

Possibility of retrospective taxation would make me not want to risk being in contract in PS come next April.

MrMarkyMark
26th July 2016, 09:08
Shirley it would be for new contracts from next April.

Not sure if or how renewals of existing contracts may be affected after that date. It's possible the renewal acceptance will require a termination of the old contract arrangements and welcome to the new world with a new contract. All guess work until they decide the specifics of what kind of mess they want to pretend is workable.

MOD already have in place, renewal presents a new worded contract on a sign it, or get lost basis :eyes

missinggreenfields
26th July 2016, 09:16
Nice to see that even those who should know things don't

As you are subject to IR35 - there won't be any expenses bar none-standard circumstances....

Do you not need to pay insurance, accounting, phone, broadband, use of office etc if you are inside IR35 then? :confused:

eek
26th July 2016, 09:27
Do you not need to pay insurance, accounting, phone, broadband, use of office etc if you are inside IR35 then? :confused:

You are working as if on the staff of that public sector agency... How do you think HMRC see it....

LondonManc
26th July 2016, 09:29
You are working as if on the staff of that public sector agency... How do you think HMRC see it....

If I'm working as staff, I want sick pay, holidays, representation, any other staff perks associated with the job.

Hobosapien
26th July 2016, 09:29
MOD already have in place, renewal presents a new worded contract on a sign it, or get lost basis :eyes

So they're trailing it voluntarily then. If everyone presented with such a new contract just walks, that may be the right kind of feedback that will make the govermin change their minds for next April. :smokin

Hobosapien
26th July 2016, 09:33
If I'm working as staff, I want sick pay, holidays, representation, any other staff perks associated with the job.

:rollin: That naivety (as HMRC see it) is the penalty for not being an employee in the first place, but trying to be dirty tax avoiders that in their new dictionary is a page closer to tax evasion and must be clamped down on due to 'fairness'.

My plan B is to start a new agency called Starbuck's Vodafone so no tax is due at all, it's all voluntary. :smokin

missinggreenfields
26th July 2016, 09:34
You are working as if on the staff of that public sector agency... How do you think HMRC see it....

:confused:

Someone from PRISM mentioned that contractors have expenses. You said that you don't if you are inside IR35.

Were you just saying what HMRC think? I'm utterly confused why anyone would think that you don't have expenses if you are inside IR35, which is how I read your post.

malvolio
26th July 2016, 09:37
:confused:

Someone from PRISM mentioned that contractors have expenses. You said that you don't if you are inside IR35.

Were you just saying what HMRC think? I'm utterly confused why anyone would think that you don't have expenses if you are inside IR35, which is how I read your post.
You don't. Latest bright idea from our friends at HMRC is that if YourCo is working under IR35 you are not entitled to claim home-to-work expenses and subsistence unless you are travelling to a site other than your normal place of work. Just like employees and umbrella users...

youngguy
26th July 2016, 09:43
My concern would be if you currently have a contract and it goes over into the new tax year.. what happens when you take this online tool and you are inside IR35 (which I'm sure it will be set up to ensure that 99% are!). Do they apply retrospective tax collection for the previous months on that contract. Sounds like alll of us should make a run for it before April

So if someone signs a 12 monther in march what happens .....?

missinggreenfields
26th July 2016, 09:44
You don't. Latest bright idea from our friends at HMRC is that if YourCo is working under IR35 you are not entitled to claim home-to-work expenses and subsistence unless you are travelling to a site other than your normal place of work. Just like employees and umbrella users...

Home to work I understand. Travel and subsistence I understand.

Every other expense is still incurred, whether inside or outside IR35, and certainly not "bar none-standard circumstances".

missinggreenfields
26th July 2016, 09:44
So if someone signs a 12 monther in march what happens .....?

When (if) the new rules come in, then the engager becomes responsible for assessment and (if necessary) tax deduction from that point forwards.

northernladuk
26th July 2016, 09:47
So if someone signs a 12 monther in march what happens .....?

You'd expect the changes would be applied on the first day of the new tax year as T&S was. This doesn't really have anything to do with the actual contract.

gables
26th July 2016, 09:55
Home to work I understand. Travel and subsistence I understand.

Every other expense is still incurred, whether inside or outside IR35, and certainly not "bar none-standard circumstances".

Is it possible the use of the word 'expenses' is being misinterpreted as it feels fit? Obviously whether the contract is IR35 caught or not the LTD will have certain costs, expenses if you like, and these should be deducted from income as a cost before CT, deemed taxes are applied. I'm not sure if these are suppose to be covered under the 5% expenses rule, but that doesn't make sense as a low income contract will have the same admin as a higher one.

For a lot of people the term expenses is used to describe personal payments being claimed back from their employer\company to reimburse cost due carrying out their work.

HMRC seem particularly good at mixing up and using terms without clarification.

DotasScandal
26th July 2016, 10:40
If everyone presented with such a new contract just walks, that may be the right kind of feedback that will make the govermin change their minds for next April. :smokin

You mean contractors actually acting with esprit de corps? Not in this lifetime.

DotasScandal
26th July 2016, 10:42
HMRC seem particularly good at mixing up and using terms without clarification.

Yes, and it's completely intentional and aimed squarely at leaving the door wide open to retrospective redefinition ("clarification") of said terms as and when HMRC see fit.
This is a trend that had been in existence for a good few years.

Hobosapien
26th July 2016, 11:08
You'd expect the changes would be applied on the first day of the new tax year as T&S was. This doesn't really have anything to do with the actual contract.

:eek:

Train crash alert. Wrong type of contractors on the line. All those clueless employee disguised contractors operating via clueless agencies your stop was April 2017 and the end of the line is now a massive fine or jail time. Bon voyage, Hector.

LondonManc
26th July 2016, 11:23
:eek:

Train crash alert. Wrong type of contractors on the line. All those clueless employee disguised contractors operating via clueless agencies your stop was April 2017 and the end of the line is now a massive fine or jail time. Bon voyage, Hector.

It could be a roundabout way of achieving what they're setting out to achieve. The death of BoS permietractors isn't a bad thing.

youngguy
26th July 2016, 11:28
You'd expect the changes would be applied on the first day of the new tax year as T&S was. This doesn't really have anything to do with the actual contract.

True I guess much like a vat change. I guess then a contractor potentially walks and invokes a termination process

MrMarkyMark
26th July 2016, 11:29
I believe they are using MOD as a pilot scheme, it will be interesting to see how it goes :eyes

youngguy
26th July 2016, 11:47
I believe they are using MOD as a pilot scheme, it will be interesting to see how it goes :eyes

In your experience are people leaving, renegotiating or accepting it?

MrMarkyMark
26th July 2016, 11:57
In your experience are people leaving, renegotiating or accepting it?

Not me, but there is someone who has just quit there on here....a search should locate him.

westtester
26th July 2016, 13:37
In your experience are people leaving, renegotiating or accepting it?

Speaking from experience, there is no renegotiation to be had. As contract reviews are no longer acceptable, there is no way to prove conclusively that you are outside IR35 to their satisfaction. No rate rises are being considered either, it really is a take it or leave it situation. I think the threat of fines for non-compliance is driving the intransigent position.

With the alternative being the umbrella company route or joining the payroll, pretty much every contractor is going to be leaving. I've already gone back to a private sector gig.

LondonManc
26th July 2016, 13:42
Speaking from experience, there is no renegotiation to be had. As contract reviews are no longer acceptable, there is no way to prove conclusively that you are outside IR35 to their satisfaction. No rate rises are being considered either, it really is a take it or leave it situation. I think the threat of fines for non-compliance is driving the intransigent position.

With the alternative being the umbrella company route or joining the payroll, pretty much every contractor is going to be leaving. I've already gone back to a private sector gig.

What does that mean? Does that mean that a QDOS review could place you outside IR35 but hard cheese, you're still inside as far as they're concerned?

youngguy
26th July 2016, 13:44
Speaking from experience, there is no renegotiation to be had. As contract reviews are no longer acceptable, there is no way to prove conclusively that you are outside IR35 to their satisfaction. No rate rises are being considered either, it really is a take it or leave it situation. I think the threat of fines for non-compliance is driving the intransigent position.

With the alternative being the umbrella company route or joining the payroll, pretty much every contractor is going to be leaving. I've already gone back to a private sector gig.

Interesting. I guess it is then a case of PS realising in a few months they have a massive resource shortage,or the bug 4 swooping in (no doubt having hoovered up a load of contractors). That is a way for 'rates to rise' as PS seem to be happy to pay anything for consultants

eek
26th July 2016, 13:47
Interesting. I guess it is then a case of PS realising in a few months they have a massive resource shortage,or the bug 4 swooping in (no doubt having hoovered up a load of contractors). That is a way for 'rates to rise' as PS seem to be happy to pay anything for consultants

This is where it gets fun.... Go and read example 3 on page 14


Example 3: Contract that involves workers providing services to the public sector.
A consultancy PLC contracts to provide on-site consultancy services at the Ministry. This
consists of ten information management consultants to work in the Ministry’s policy unit for up
to six months, as well as some software and online support. The supply of ten staff in this
contract would be within the scope of the proposed measure. The consultancy would need to
use the online tool and consider the new rules. They need to operate tax and National
Insurance on the payments to the PSCs. The PSCs would need to give information to the
consultancy such as the worker’s name, address and National Insurance Number so that the
consultancy could add them to their payroll.

They can't employ contractors via the consultancies... Only permie staff can be realistically used....

MrMarkyMark
26th July 2016, 13:48
Speaking from experience, there is no renegotiation to be had. As contract reviews are no longer acceptable, there is no way to prove conclusively that you are outside IR35 to their satisfaction. No rate rises are being considered either, it really is a take it or leave it situation. I think the threat of fines for non-compliance is driving the intransigent position.

With the alternative being the umbrella company route or joining the payroll, pretty much every contractor is going to be leaving. I've already gone back to a private sector gig.

Good for you bud :happy

youngguy
26th July 2016, 13:51
This is where it gets fun.... Go and read example 3 on page 14



They can't employ contractors via the consultancies... Only permie staff can be realistically used....

I read that example and envisaged something like :
Now: contractor 500pd. Consultant 100pd
Future: contractor subs to consultancy and gets £600, consultancy collects extra tax and then charges out at £1000...or more)

Contractor gets more to offset their extra tax
Consultancy get monopoly of resources

northernladuk
26th July 2016, 13:58
I read that example and envisaged something like :
Now: contractor 500pd. Consultant 100pd
Future: contractor subs to consultancy and gets £600, consultancy collects extra tax and then charges out at £1000...or more)

Contractor gets more to offset their extra tax
Consultancy get monopoly of resources

Do you work in the PS at the moment?

westtester
26th July 2016, 14:16
What does that mean? Does that mean that a QDOS review could place you outside IR35 but hard cheese, you're still inside as far as they're concerned?

Yes. Well to be specific, 'independent' contract reviews are not considered valid. So the money I shelled out for a public sector QDos review was wasted. I think a review from HMRC themselves would be considered valid but I don't know anyone who's ever tried that.

westtester
26th July 2016, 14:21
This is where it gets fun.... Go and read example 3 on page 14



They can't employ contractors via the consultancies... Only permie staff can be realistically used....

The consultancy route was considered as an option as my last site. They were basically asked to take the IR35 risk on behalf of the PS client. The answer was a resounding 'no thanks' and the meeting was over pretty quickly.

youngguy
26th July 2016, 15:55
Do you work in the PS at the moment?

Until recently I did. Before I left there were convo's from some consultancies looking at the feasibility of either fixed term/perm or subbing in relation to contractors . This was just after the initial consultation paper was published.

northernladuk
26th July 2016, 16:02
Until recently I did. Before I left there were convo's from some consultancies looking at the feasibility of either fixed term/perm or subbing in relation to contractors . This was just after the initial consultation paper was published.

Fixed term is the standard way of getting perms in now so it's not really in relation to contractors as such.

missinggreenfields
26th July 2016, 16:09
This is where it gets fun.... Go and read example 3 on page 14

They can't employ contractors via the consultancies... Only permie staff can be realistically used....

Read it carefully - the public sector client can use the big four and pay more. The big four then takes people on as (no-longer) disguised permies. They could even offer a decent enough rate increase to cover that if they wanted to. Contractor gets the increase to cover the tax bill, big 4 gets the profit, public sector gets the project delivered (at a higher cost).

Trebles all round.

youngguy
26th July 2016, 16:34
Fixed term is the standard way of getting perms in now so it's not really in relation to contractors as such.

Shows how long I've been in contracting!

youngguy
26th July 2016, 16:35
Read it carefully - the public sector client can use the big four and pay more. The big four then takes people on as (no-longer) disguised permies. They could even offer a decent enough rate increase to cover that if they wanted to. Contractor gets the increase to cover the tax bill, big 4 gets the profit, public sector gets the project delivered (at a higher cost).

Trebles all round.

This is what I've been (badly) alluding to.

malvolio
26th July 2016, 18:40
This is what I've been (badly) alluding to.
Yeah, all well and good - but why would a consultancy pay us a significant increase in fees of around 20% to offset IR35 overheads? Plenty of mugs out there.

What will happen is the PS will still be using contractors but not only not knowing that
they are, but they are getting the bad ones, and paying roughly double the price for them.

youngguy
26th July 2016, 19:35
Yeah, all well and good - but why would a consultancy pay us a significant increase in fees of around 20% to offset IR35 overheads? Plenty of mugs out there.

What will happen is the PS will still be using contractors but not only not knowing that
they are, but they are getting the bad ones, and paying roughly double the price for them.

True. There are plenty of young grads who will gladly take the consultancy grains of rice. The Q will be about continuity and whether the consultancies see the need for some more experience which may only exist in the (former) contracting market once they have used all their own middle managers .

I don't much care about the PS but I am interested in how this pans out as I do believe it will be the beginning for all contractors.

Part of me believes that contractors will find a way /loophole to minimise this. Wishful thinking perhaps !

teapot418
26th July 2016, 20:48
MOD already have in place, renewal presents a new worded contract on a sign it, or get lost basis :eyes


I believe they are using MOD as a pilot scheme, it will be interesting to see how it goes :eyes

I'm not sure it's 'them'.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-evaluation-of-tax-arrangements-for-off-payroll-contracts-in-the-public-sector-published

MoD got fined for not properly implementing the current rules. I wonder if this is their way of ensuring they are compliant with current legislation?

IPSE
27th July 2016, 09:30
I'm not sure it's 'them'.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/second-evaluation-of-tax-arrangements-for-off-payroll-contracts-in-the-public-sector-published

MoD got fined for not properly implementing the current rules. I wonder if this is their way of ensuring they are compliant with current legislation?

Yes, I'm sure it is. The laws of unintended consequence of the Alexander Review:(

youngguy
27th July 2016, 10:18
Yes, I'm sure it is. The laws of unintended consequence of the Alexander Review:(

I'm really not trying to give you a hard time IPSE, but given the apparent decision of the Gov which has been taken pre consultation and the comment that the tool isn't going to be ready anytime soon,is there nothing you'd like to say or do before Aug?

I've seen nothing on the IPSE forums or new feeds on this subject for quite some time

eek
27th July 2016, 10:28
Yes, I'm sure it is. The laws of unintended consequence of the Alexander Review:(

I don't think HMRC will regard it as unintended - the fear factor is perfect for them - as it will discourage any agency from taking any risk when making the decision.

As such I can see why the website isn't being rushed. Few decisions would get that far....

DaveB
27th July 2016, 10:48
Looks like it's all over bar the shouting.

Government waves through IR35 changes from April 2017 :: Contractor UK (http://www.contractoruk.com/news/0012628government_approves_ir35_changes_april.html )


Treasury minutes recording agreement to these contractor-centric timeframes reveal that the public sector IR35 proposal will become law.

So while it may still be open to consultation, George Osborne's IR35 proposal is now a case of 'when' not 'if.'

“After April 2017, the new tax rules announced at Budget 2016 will apply,” state the Treasury minutes, referring to the ex-chancellor's IR35 proposal. “The Treasury will consider whether changes to [departmental] guidelines [on IR35 in the public sector] are necessary.”

MrMarkyMark
27th July 2016, 11:14
So another victory for IPSE then :eyes
Talk about not having your eyes on the ball.

T&S victory must seem worthless now.

malvolio
27th July 2016, 11:18
So another victory for IPSE then :eyes
Talk about not having your eyes on the ball.

T&S victory must seem worthless now.
That's IPSE and every other serious body with even a vague interest, such as ICAEW, the IR35 Forum, and many other trade bodies and consultancies. If the people raising the consultation don't listen to the answers, just what do you expect anyone to do about it? Apart from us whinging form the sidelines of course...

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 11:32
That's IPSE and every other serious body with even a vague interest, such as ICAEW, the IR35 Forum, and many other trade bodies and consultancies. If the people raising the consultation don't listen to the answers, just what do you expect anyone to do about it? Apart from us whinging form the sidelines of course...

Including the CBI and REC. Nobody but HMRC have come out in favour of this.

That doesn't mean anyone should stop complaining / lobbying / responding to the consultation though - if everyone gives up before the deadline, then it will become a certainty for public sector and then private sector ("nobody complained last time, so it must be OK")

gables
27th July 2016, 11:43
Including the CBI and REC. Nobody but HMRC have come out in favour of this.

That doesn't mean anyone should stop complaining / lobbying / responding to the consultation though - if everyone gives up before the deadline, then it will become a certainty for public sector and then private sector ("nobody complained last time, so it must be OK")

This, keep banging the drum, keep trying to get HMRC evidence\figures exposed as the lies they are - you owe it to your members!! (not that I am a member)

DaveB
27th July 2016, 12:01
Ironically, there is a lot of extra stuff in the details that are positive.

Requiring departments to review their use of contractors, put succession plans in place to hire permanent staff and to limit long term use of contractors rather than permies. All good management policies that should have been happening anyway and would save them a load of cash in the longer term.

nucastle
27th July 2016, 12:02
I'm currently in the PS with an October contract expiry, and this news has more or less sealed the deal for me to jump ship.

A number of my colleagues aren't so convinced of the doom and gloom and equate the losses to them, being anywhere between 13% worst case (fully caught by IR35 and pay the tax) and 0% on the basis that rates are suddenly going to rise so that the net effect to the contractor is zero - this assumes that Capita and the agency/agencies in the middle reduce their margin, or rates go up to the government etc etc. We are talking people currently earning between 400-600 a day here.

I've looked at the online IR35 calculators and they quote a loss per month of anywhere between 2500 and 5000 a month based on the above daily rate if caught inside IR35, but the general feeling amongst my colleagues is that the current calculators do not apply to how the rules will actually be applied come next April - is this right?

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 12:02
This, keep banging the drum, keep trying to get HMRC evidence\figures exposed as the lies they are - you owe it to your members!! (not that I am a member)

You don't have to be a member to reply to the consultation yourself :)

And there is a good CUK discount for new members I think.

youngguy
27th July 2016, 12:05
That's IPSE and every other serious body with even a vague interest, such as ICAEW, the IR35 Forum, and many other trade bodies and consultancies. If the people raising the consultation don't listen to the answers, just what do you expect anyone to do about it? Apart from us whinging form the sidelines of course...

Are you kidding? I've asked IPSE directly on here and had no answers. In my experience if someone is unable /unwilling to tell you what they have been doing....it usually means the answer is very little .

They didn't do anything - didn't rally the troops - and now the decision has already been made. Even if they presented good argument to Gov now, Gov would be less inclined to listen due to having to do a u turn and lose face.

I've been a member for 10 yrs and won't be renewing. I don't blame IPSE for losing the fight but I do blame them for not having the fight.

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 12:06
I'm currently in the PS with an October contract expiry, and this news has more or less sealed the deal for me to jump ship.

A number of my colleagues aren't so convinced of the doom and gloom and equate the losses to them, being anywhere between 13% worst case (fully caught by IR35 and pay the tax) and 0% on the basis that rates are suddenly going to rise so that the net effect to the contractor is zero - this assumes that Capita and the agency/agencies in the middle reduce their margin, or rates go up to the government etc etc. We are talking people currently earning between 400-600 a day here.

I've looked at the online IR35 calculators and they quote a loss per month of anywhere between 2500 and 5000 a month based on the above daily rate if caught inside IR35, but the general feeling amongst my colleagues is that the current calculators do not apply to how the rules will actually be applied come next April - is this right?

13% seems incredibly low, given the level of employees NI plus NI to pay, and the unknown about who is going to pay the employers NI. The idea that rates will rise seems a tad naive as well on their part - my calculation is that I would look to increase my rate by 40-50% to cover this, which I can't see the client choosing to pay.

The rules aren't going to be changing in terms of tax assessment, so I don't understand why the calculator would be wrong.

nucastle
27th July 2016, 12:12
13% seems incredibly low, given the level of employees NI plus NI to pay, and the unknown about who is going to pay the employers NI. The idea that rates will rise seems a tad naive as well on their part - my calculation is that I would look to increase my rate by 40-50% to cover this, which I can't see the client choosing to pay.

The rules aren't going to be changing in terms of tax assessment, so I don't understand why the calculator would be wrong.

I can't see anyone in the chain between the government and the contractor suddenly taking a huge loss on the chin. Presumably the tax and NI is going to be deducted by the agent.

youngguy
27th July 2016, 12:13
13% seems incredibly low, given the level of employees NI plus NI to pay, and the unknown about who is going to pay the employers NI. The idea that rates will rise seems a tad naive as well on their part - my calculation is that I would look to increase my rate by 40-50% to cover this, which I can't see the client choosing to pay.

The rules aren't going to be changing in terms of tax assessment, so I don't understand why the calculator would be wrong.

IIRC the 13% was the tax hit. It didn't take into account the T&S hit.

I agree the rate rise is optimistic ,but I'd say it is worth a try, if nothing else to make depts aware of the reason 'my costs go up, my rates go up'. If they say no ppl should walk

I suppose the overall hit would depend on how much t and s a contractor claims. I'm still not clear what this means for t and s (5% allowable as per inside ir35??)

Whoever works out a calculator is a better man than I.

I

nucastle
27th July 2016, 12:17
So are any of these IR35 calculators accurate?

Using the one on this site, assuming 10k a year salary gross and the rest taken as dividends with zero expenses (just to keep it simple) gives us the following :

R35 Calculator Results

Inside IR35 net monthly income: £4,288

Outside IR35 net monthly income: £7,285

Calculation based on:

£ ADDITIONAL ANNUAL INCOME

£400 DAILY

£10000 GROSS SALARY

40 HOURS PER WEEK

100% OF DIVIDEND

44 WEEKS PER YEAR

TAX CODE OF 1060L

£ ANNUAL EXPENSES

northernladuk
27th July 2016, 12:30
So are any of these IR35 calculators accurate?

Using the one on this site, assuming 10k a year salary gross and the rest taken as dividends with zero expenses (just to keep it simple) gives us the following :

R35 Calculator Results

Inside IR35 net monthly income: £4,288

Outside IR35 net monthly income: £7,285

Calculation based on:

£ ADDITIONAL ANNUAL INCOME

£400 DAILY

£10000 GROSS SALARY

40 HOURS PER WEEK

100% OF DIVIDEND

44 WEEKS PER YEAR

TAX CODE OF 1060L

£ ANNUAL EXPENSES

They can never be accurate due to other factors involved in each situation so they are a guide at very best IMO.

malvolio
27th July 2016, 12:35
Are you kidding? I've asked IPSE directly on here and had no answers. In my experience if someone is unable /unwilling to tell you what they have been doing....it usually means the answer is very little .

They didn't do anything - didn't rally the troops - and now the decision has already been made. Even if they presented good argument to Gov now, Gov would be less inclined to listen due to having to do a u turn and lose face.

I've been a member for 10 yrs and won't be renewing. I don't blame IPSE for losing the fight but I do blame them for not having the fight.
Are you really expecting them - or any other similar organisation - to disclose policy issues on an open forum? How about asking them directly?

And you're wrong anyway, but hey...

IPSE
27th July 2016, 12:37
Are you kidding? I've asked IPSE directly on here and had no answers.

In fairness to us, you have had answers - you just weren't happy with them. As explained previously we will not expose detailed plans/responses on a public forum.

DotasScandal
27th July 2016, 12:51
That's IPSE and every other serious body with even a vague interest, such as ICAEW, the IR35 Forum, and many other trade bodies and consultancies

What would be good would be if all these eminent bodies learned from past experience, from a change? This is an EXACT replay of the APN consultation of 2014. Please look at the list of respondents (http://tinyurl.com/ooqgl85): it reads like a who's who of the accounting, law, and consulting profession. All those people got pissed on by Gauke and HMRC. Did they say anything?
Not that I have heard. In this situation, it would be surprising to assume HMRC not to use the exact same protocol in every instance. Fool me once...etc.


If the people raising the consultation don't listen to the answers, just what do you expect anyone to do about it? Apart from us whinging form the sidelines of course...
As individuals, we cannot do too much. But the aforementioned bodies SHOULD raise their voice and stop accepting the BS - otherwise it will NEVER stop.

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 12:59
As individuals, we cannot do too much.

Don't let eek hear you say that - his website saved the day for T&S!

mudskipper
27th July 2016, 13:02
Are you kidding? I've asked IPSE directly on here and had no answers. In my experience if someone is unable /unwilling to tell you what they have been doing....it usually means the answer is very little .

They didn't do anything - didn't rally the troops - and now the decision has already been made. Even if they presented good argument to Gov now, Gov would be less inclined to listen due to having to do a u turn and lose face.

I've been a member for 10 yrs and won't be renewing. I don't blame IPSE for losing the fight but I do blame them for not having the fight.

The arguments that IPSE will make against the proposal are unlikely to be much different to the arguments you or I would make - the difference is that IPSE can and will back their arguments with credible, well researched evidence, and if anything is going to result in a rethink it is this, rather than shouting.

DotasScandal
27th July 2016, 13:06
Don't let eek hear you say that - his website saved the day for T&S!
Don't get me wrong. I believe in individual action and guerilla tactics (in case you don't know, Dotas Scandal is also a website (http://www.dotas-scandal.org)).
But real strength is in numbers, that's why we're also endorsing Big Group (http://www.wttbiggroup.co.uk).

youngguy
27th July 2016, 13:13
Are you really expecting them - or any other similar organisation - to disclose policy issues on an open forum? How about asking them directly?

And you're wrong anyway, but hey...

I have....no answer

Easy to say without providing evidence

eek
27th July 2016, 13:13
I'm currently in the PS with an October contract expiry, and this news has more or less sealed the deal for me to jump ship.

A number of my colleagues aren't so convinced of the doom and gloom and equate the losses to them, being anywhere between 13% worst case (fully caught by IR35 and pay the tax) and 0% on the basis that rates are suddenly going to rise so that the net effect to the contractor is zero - this assumes that Capita and the agency/agencies in the middle reduce their margin, or rates go up to the government etc etc. We are talking people currently earning between 400-600 a day here.

I've looked at the online IR35 calculators and they quote a loss per month of anywhere between 2500 and 5000 a month based on the above daily rate if caught inside IR35, but the general feeling amongst my colleagues is that the current calculators do not apply to how the rules will actually be applied come next April - is this right?

The calculators may not be 100% accurate but as a rough estimate they will be correct.

My advice even if you think rates will rise is that you need to leave. Rates will only increase if supply disappears and if you are happily sat at a desk in HMRC or dwp (taking a wild guess from your username) HMRC / dwp won't need to increase the rare for your job

youngguy
27th July 2016, 13:15
In fairness to us, you have had answers - you just weren't happy with them. As explained previously we will not expose detailed plans/responses on a public forum.

I asked why the secrecy - you did not answer.

I asked what I could be doing - you did not answer.

I asked why there were no updates on your site - you did not answer .

I asked if you planned to do/say anything post the meeting minutes saying this was a done deal......no answer for that either I suspect ?

youngguy
27th July 2016, 13:18
The arguments that IPSE will make against the proposal are unlikely to be much different to the arguments you or I would make - the difference is that IPSE can and will back their arguments with credible, well researched evidence, and if anything is going to result in a rethink it is this, rather than shouting.

But IPSE have been the least vocal (publicly ) of all groups and if these discussions are happening with hind closed doors what pressure will hmrc feel?

Name me one other campaign which has been silent until the end and actually worked !

eek
27th July 2016, 13:22
Don't let eek hear you say that - his website saved the day for T&S!

Possibly, possibly not. What it did provide was evidence to show the impact on one particular set of workers (ourselves) that meant the unions I spoke too were happy to tone down their desire for a blanket ban on expenses for limited companies.

It also provided evidence to HMRC of the impact it would have on our customers, that we mainly replaced expensive consultancies rather than permanent staff and the distance we travelled.

What I do know is that some people I talk to (and IPSE do not) believe that my evidence was far more compelling and successful than others pretend - hint the result looks exactly what both myself and the unions I speak to were hoping for.

I will leave it at that - but note how little effort I am making in fighting this done deal. Let's see if IPSE can deliver...

Hobosapien
27th July 2016, 13:25
if these discussions are happening with hind closed doors what pressure will hmrc fee!l

Depends who is behind those closed doors involved in the discussion. Isn't that where a lot of the real lobbying goes on?

Looking in from outside at least the members know their fees will be paying for some lovely sandwiches. :laugh

nucastle
27th July 2016, 13:27
The calculators may not be 100% accurate but as a rough estimate they will be correct.

My advice even if you think rates will rise is that you need to leave. Rates will only increase if supply disappears and if you are happily sat at a desk in HMRC or dwp (taking a wild guess from your username) HMRC / dwp won't need to increase the rare for your job

Good point, and personally I can't see sitting contractors suddenly getting big pay rises for whining a bit.

SueEllen
27th July 2016, 13:28
Possibly, possibly not. What it did provide was evidence to show the impact on one particular set of workers (ourselves) that meant the unions I spoke too were happy to tone down their desire for a blanket ban on expenses for limited companies.

It also provided evidence to HMRC of the impact it would have on our customers, that we mainly replaced expensive consultancies rather than permanent staff and the distance we travelled.

What I do know is that some people I talk to (and IPSE do not) believe that my evidence was far more compelling and successful than others pretend - hint the result looks exactly what both myself and the unions I speak to were hoping for.

I will leave it at that - but note how little effort I am making in fighting this done deal. Let's see if IPSE can deliver...

Your evidence and some others made it clear what the issues where with research to back it up. I actually asked a few other contractors to help with some of the research that was being collected.

IPSE's on the other hand was lacking detail and only concerned with members. Fair enough because it is a membership organisation but one easy way of getting more members is to show leadership in a tough situation. Unions actually do this in workplaces for example when they are negotiating to save jobs and yes they do get more members.

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 13:50
I asked what I could be doing

I think it's probably something like:

- Make sure as many contractors you know know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Make sure that as many clients as possible know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as you can.

At the moment, the consultation is still running - and the more people that respond with details of how this is a bad thing (whether that's because it's bad for the public sector, bad for the individual, bad because of the implementation and on-going costs, bad because the tool cannot reflect the case law accuratley, bad because there is so much uncertainty about expenses) then the more likely this is to be stopped or restricted.

I'm surprised that people need telling to try to get people involved in the consultation, though.

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 13:52
the result looks exactly what both myself and the unions I speak to were hoping for.

And that's why we should never believe that the individual can't make a difference. Don't be coy, we know that it was all down to you and your website :yay:

IPSE
27th July 2016, 13:53
I asked why the secrecy - you did not answer.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/116065-youre-probably-not-going-like-we-certainly-dont-6.html#post2288654


I asked what I could be doing - you did not answer.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/116065-youre-probably-not-going-like-we-certainly-dont-6.html#post2288654


I asked why there were no updates on your site - you did not answer .

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/116065-youre-probably-not-going-like-we-certainly-dont-6.html#post2288654


I asked if you planned to do/say anything post the meeting minutes saying this was a done deal......no answer for that either I suspect ?
The "meeting minutes" are a recollection published in news story of a consultation meeting. Of course HMRC go into these with a view as to consulting on "how" and, sometimes, "when", not "if". It is not within the authority of HMRC officials to discuss the "if" - their policies are, believe it or not, set by their political masters.

teapot418
27th July 2016, 14:00
The treasury minutes are here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540479/56385_Cm_9323_Web.pdf

page 10 -



4: Committee of Public Accounts conclusion:
The Committee is not convinced that Departments are doing all they can to ensure that
temporary staff pay the right tax. ̘

Recommendation:
HM Treasury should re-evaluate its guidelines to departments in the light of Budget 2016. It
should also require that departments immediately review whether their off-payroll staff should
be on PAYE and, after April 2017 that departments review the calculation of tax for a sample of
any temporary staff who continue to be contracted as a company.


4.1 The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation.
Target implementation date: April 2017.

4.2 The Treasury will consider whether its guidelines need amending following the Budget 2016
announcement of proposed reform in the public sector of the tax legislation on off-payroll limited company
workers. HM Revenue and Customs published a consultation on these changes on 6 May 2016.
Following this, the Treasury will consider whether changes to the guidelines are necessary. The existing
guidance will continue to require departments to review whether off-payroll staff should be on PAYE. After
April 2017, the new tax rules announced at Budget 2016 will apply.


Context is everything...

eek
27th July 2016, 14:24
I think it's probably something like:

- Make sure as many contractors you know know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Make sure that as many clients as possible know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as you can.

At the moment, the consultation is still running - and the more people that respond with details of how this is a bad thing (whether that's because it's bad for the public sector, bad for the individual, bad because of the implementation and on-going costs, bad because the tool cannot reflect the case law accuratley, bad because there is so much uncertainty about expenses) then the more likely this is to be stopped or restricted.

I'm surprised that people need telling to try to get people involved in the consultation, though.

All the above but note Teapot418's treasury notes above.

This deal is probably done - for those tasked with delivery the consequences of not dealing with it is ridicule (or worse) in Private Eye and the papers alongside a change of department or role from their nice office in Whitehall to a desk somewhere near Kings Cross....

Which is why I'm not spending any time campaigning on this - I have sent a letter but if you understand what's about to happen you are better spending time finding a safe position from which you can watch the disaster unfold....

malvolio
27th July 2016, 14:32
I have....no answer

Easy to say without providing evidence
Loads of evidence, including many long conversations with the people at the sharp end - inside IPSE... :wink

eek
27th July 2016, 14:42
Loads of evidence, including many long conversations with the people at the sharp end - inside IPSE... :wink

Says a person who has been inside IPSE for 12 years and had a habit of misrepresenting his position in it to his advantage (until called out by TF and ms) - there is plenty of evidence on the latter point around here.

malvolio
27th July 2016, 14:55
Says a person who has been inside IPSE for 12 years and had a habit of misrepresenting his position in it to his advantage (until called out by TF and ms) - there is plenty of evidence on the latter point around here.
Again, wrong. I've never said I represented IPSE and have many times said I'm speaking for myself alone. In the days when I did actually genuinely represent IPSE I wasn't posting on here, nor for some time afterwards. You will also note I have yet to be corrected by any posts from IPSE or any of the others who have got out of their comfy world and tried to actually do something.

But that is not even vaguely relevant to the current discussion. HMRC have been told what to do, the challenge now is not to get them to do something else - that simply isn't going to happen - but to minimise the potential damage it will cause; failing that, wait until the disaster strikes then use the same research to get them out of the hole they will have dug themselves into.

You really must stop confusing motion with progress.

mudskipper
27th July 2016, 15:04
Says a person who has been inside IPSE for 12 years and had a habit of misrepresenting his position in it to his advantage (until called out by TF and ms) - there is plenty of evidence on the latter point around here.

mal, up till this year, has been involved with IPSE on CC and board for many, many years; both man and boy. :oldgit:

Whilst I don't always agree with his posting style, he has contributed a huge amount, and I for one am sorry to see him leave the CC.

The only thing I believe I have ever 'called him out' on (and then only politely) is when he has used language carelessly that implied he was representing IPSE's views rather than his own.

Let's not get personal - there's bigger issues here.

youngguy
27th July 2016, 15:38
I think it's probably something like:

- Make sure as many contractors you know know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Make sure that as many clients as possible know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as you can.

At the moment, the consultation is still running - and the more people that respond with details of how this is a bad thing (whether that's because it's bad for the public sector, bad for the individual, bad because of the implementation and on-going costs, bad because the tool cannot reflect the case law accuratley, bad because there is so much uncertainty about expenses) then the more likely this is to be stopped or restricted.

I'm surprised that people need telling to try to get people involved in the consultation, though.

I quite agree these things are quite obvious , ironically you have provided more guidance and detail than IPSE. My point is what are they doing as a body ,considering they hold our membership money

youngguy
27th July 2016, 15:44
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/116065-youre-probably-not-going-like-we-certainly-dont-6.html#post2288654



http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/116065-youre-probably-not-going-like-we-certainly-dont-6.html#post2288654



http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/116065-youre-probably-not-going-like-we-certainly-dont-6.html#post2288654


The "meeting minutes" are a recollection published in news story of a consultation meeting. Of course HMRC go into these with a view as to consulting on "how" and, sometimes, "when", not "if". It is not within the authority of HMRC officials to discuss the "if" - their policies are, believe it or not, set by their political masters.

Obfuscation.

You gave a vague answer about us and them and an alleged plan you would not disclose You did not answer my points specifically.

So when I tell all my mates to get involved and write to MPs as lone voices and they say what about IPSE I have to say 'they are doing something apparently but no one knows what'.

As a paying member I have asked you several times on here and directly and you have provided nothing. Not even a clue as to what meetings or ministers you are lobbying, let alone meeting. For all we know you are sat in front of a computer looking at survey monkey results and scratching your heads trying to work out how to export it into excel to make a graph.

I won't ask again and I won't renew my membership with you.

youngguy
27th July 2016, 15:49
Loads of evidence, including many long conversations with the people at the sharp end - inside IPSE... :wink

Come on Mal. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?

Cliche and rhetoric.... Btw I am leader of a troop of genie's. I can't show you them or tell you what they can do for you, but give me money and good things will occur. Trust me. I have the evidence and you know I've got your back , nudge nudge wink wink

missinggreenfields
27th July 2016, 15:49
So when I tell all my mates to get involved and write to MPs as lone voices and they say what about IPSE I have to say 'they are doing something apparently but no one knows what'.

I'll save you the price of a stamp at the moment - there is no point writing to your MP because the only reply they will give you is "thank you for your letter, HMRC are still consulting on this point, I advise you to respond to the consultation, and I'll watch this closely for progress". If your MP isn't a Labour MP, then they may add "Labour left us in such a mess that we need to get more money in and this will do that".

Complete the consultation response with facts. When the consultation is finished and there is a government response, that's the time for people to write to their MPs - and I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of organised letter writing campaign to MPs at the appropriate time.

eek
27th July 2016, 15:56
mal, up till this year, has been involved with IPSE on CC and board for many, many years; both man and boy. :oldgit:

Whilst I don't always agree with his posting style, he has contributed a huge amount, and I for one am sorry to see him leave the CC.

The only thing I believe I have ever 'called him out' on (and then only politely) is when he has used language carelessly that implied he was representing IPSE's views rather than his own.

Let's not get personal - there's bigger issues here.

And the reason why I mentioned it was that he spent years doing exactly that claiming that the comment he made represented IPSE's viewpoint when it was just his own and that he continued to do so even when questioned until others here arrived on the CC and started to call him out - his past demeanor (and I think there are numerous examples between 2009 and 2015) does mean that any of his comments should be treated with (trying to think of an appropriate phrase, shall we say caution)...

However its nice to see you posting on this thread and I agree that there are big problems and I look forward to how IPSE deal with it... I fear that I already know the answer but lets hope for the sake of others that I'm wrong.....

youngguy
27th July 2016, 16:11
I'll save you the price of a stamp at the moment - there is no point writing to your MP because the only reply they will give you is "thank you for your letter, HMRC are still consulting on this point, I advise you to respond to the consultation, and I'll watch this closely for progress".
I personally think there will be very little value in lone people speaking up. If only there was a group that could represent our concerns and lobby on our behalf ....

Given IPSE are as unwilling to listen to their stakeholders as the Gov are, I shall save my fingers in this topic and lay it to rest.

Another interesting element is the effect this will have on the whole supply chain...agencies and accountants being two obvious ones. I bet they are equally as nervous about losing revenue and having to do more recording/collecting work for hmg.

eek
27th July 2016, 16:15
I personally think there will be very little value in lone people speaking up. If only there was a group that could represent our concerns and lobby on our behalf ....

Given IPSE are as unwilling to listen to their stakeholders as the Gov are, I shall save my fingers in this topic and lay it to rest.

Another interesting element is the effect this will have on the whole supply chain...agencies and accountants being two obvious ones. I bet they are equally as nervous about losing revenue and having to do more recording/collecting work for hmg.

The agencies reaction (I will need to find a link) is that they don't want anything to do with it. Being risk adverse and potentially being responsible for the tax owed their default answer is going to be inside - here's a nice umbrella you may as well use (thanks for the kickback)...

Accountants will just have less customers to support as people move away... Being third party suppliers they can't do much bar accept the lost of potential customers..