More

[vetran]

In your opinion - BUT SO F@CKING WHAT????

Its none of your business !

no actually in the opinion of one of the world experts in IR35, the CEO of QDOS whose business is winning IR35 cases. Not sure why you are getting so upset, maybe facts are too much for you?

[northernladyuk]

no actually in the opinion of one of the world experts in IR35, the CEO of QDOS whose business is winning IR35 cases. Not sure why you are getting so upset, maybe facts are too much for you?

Just a bit of General banter, matey.

[eek]

as HMRC have repeatedly tried to prove people inside and failed this moral crusade you are on is foolish.


IR35 reform: What the future holds | AccountingWEB



Obviously your opinion is valuable to you, I doubt its of much use to anyone else unless you print it and they run out of toilet paper.

As always HMRC need to create an objective test and penalise the whole chain if they prove wrongdoing. Until the client & agency take financial responsibility then it will still be a mess. Until a 5 year old can understand the test it will be a failure.

So why exactly is the new PS IR35 scheme designed in the way it is except to ensure it is applied using HMRC's interpretation of the law rather than the actual law.

Yes I know IR35 is only a factor if you don't have a substitution clause, mutual obligation can be shown and Supervision, Direction and / or Control are given.

However the above is equally true of a zero hours contract so HMRC's current viewpoint is why should some people be allowed to use those rules for tax advantage when a person on a zero hour contract cannot - hence new rules designed to ensure the status is determined by someone who doesn't get a major tax advantage by stating "Yep I'm outside, honest Gov".

And of course the new decision hierarchy destroys the business model of IPSE and QDOS so no wonder they are stating what they currently do...

[vetran]

So why exactly is the new PS IR35 scheme designed in the way it is except to ensure it is applied using HMRC's interpretation of the law rather than the actual law.

Yes I know IR35 is only a factor if you don't have a substitution clause, mutual obligation can be shown and Supervision, Direction and / or Control are given.

However the above is equally true of a zero hours contract so HMRC's current viewpoint is why should some people be allowed to use those rules for tax advantage when a person on a zero hour contract cannot - hence new rules designed to ensure the status is determined by someone who doesn't get a major tax advantage by stating "Yep I'm outside, honest Gov".

And of course the new decision hierarchy destroys the business model of IPSE and QDOS so no wonder they are stating what they currently do...

Just because HMRC & the government got cute doesn't mean they are right or moral. Attacking a contractor thaat works within the law is hardly reasonable.

I want to see contractors taxed properly and there are a lot of effective ways of doing that e.g. the Australian tests but they aren't doing that.

I would much prefer they define some workable tests then go and sort out multinational tax evading & zero hour contract abuse. They have wasted so much on IR35 for little benefit.

[northernladyuk]

Just because HMRC & the government got cute doesn't mean they are right or moral. Attacking a contractor thaat works within the law is hardly reasonable.

An apology awaits PC if he works within the IR35 rules (to be outside IR35 if you see what you mean). So:

- Does he have a genuine RoS (almost certainly not)
- Does he work under D&C (yes)
- Does he have MoO - IR35: Mutuality of Obligation: what it is and what it is not :: Contractor UK (this one is harder, I think, but every day PC turns up to work and his 'client' will find him work to do and whatever that work is, PC will do - am I reading it wrong?)

The defence PC has seems to be that:

a) Other people do it.
b) He'll get away with it.

But that is hardly 'working within the law'.

[vetran]

An apology awaits PC if he works within the IR35 rules (to be outside IR35 if you see what you mean). So:

- Does he have a genuine RoS (almost certainly not)
- Does he work under D&C (yes)
- Does he have MoO - IR35: Mutuality of Obligation: what it is and what it is not :: Contractor UK (this one is harder, I think, but every day PC turns up to work and his 'client' will find him work to do and whatever that work is, PC will do - am I reading it wrong?)

The defence PC has seems to be that:

a) Other people do it.
b) He'll get away with it.

But that is hardly 'working within the law'.

1500 cases won by QDOS versus 3 won by HMRC, if it were simple then QDOS would be out of business.

[northernladyuk]

1500 cases won by QDOS versus 3 won by HMRC, if it were simple then QDOS would be out of business.

Would QDOS fight PC's case or look at his working arrangements and invalidate his insurance?

[eek]

1500 cases won by QDOS versus 3 won by HMRC, if it were simple then QDOS would be out of business.

I don't think that was the question NLadyUK was asking. You sound like a broken record but you are showing why HMRC are trying to change the rules of the game....

[vetran]

I don't think that was the question NLadyUK was asking. You sound like a broken record but you are showing why HMRC are trying to change the rules of the game....

NLYUK is asking for an opinion. The point that is made again & again about IR35 is that setting your tax affairs on the basis of a biased opinion is not acceptable. Not sure why so many people have a problem with that.

PC may be morally wrong but is he legally wrong I suspect maybe not?

Tax laws should be an equation with one right answer not a thumb up the bum and guess.

[eek]

NLYUK is asking for an opinion. The point that is made again & again about IR35 is that setting your tax affairs on the basis of a biased opinion is not acceptable. Not sure why so many people have a problem with that.

PC may be morally wrong but is he legally wrong I suspect maybe not?

Tax laws should be an equation with one right answer not a thumb up the bum and guess.

Previously the tax laws allowed the person who gains most be deciding they are outside to make the decision - and surprisingly that decision was I'm outside and here is some paperwork (with industry attached) to prove it and argue the point).

Now the law is changing to ensure the person who is recruiting the person (and therefore should have a good idea how that role fits within the organisation) to make the decision...

To be honest I suspect the new way is going to be fairer once its fully working. I know that I will be avoiding a few contracts but chances are I will be able to sleep better at night knowing HMRC won't come a knocking