NHS Reaches 'Agreement' that IR35 Changes 'aren't retrospective'

[DotasScandal]

Its a rubbish number and propaganda worthy of Goebbels.

Meet HMRC's very own little Goebbelses.... I wonder how many millions of public money have been funnelled into this psychological warfare outfit?
https://www.dotas-scandal.org/behavi...d-at-it-again/
"Helping people make better choices for themselves", no less.

[Finance]

Meet HMRC's very own little Goebbelses.... I wonder how many millions of public money have been funnelled into this psychological warfare outfit?
https://www.dotas-scandal.org/behavi...d-at-it-again/
"Helping people make better choices for themselves", no less.

There was a steady stream of anti contractor articles in the media in the run up to the introduction of the new IR 35 rules. Presumably influenced by HMRC?

[sal]

An NHSI spokeswoman added: “We understand from the HMRC that the IR35 reforms concerning off-payroll are not designed to be retrospective in their application. This is a helpful and important clarification for NHS agency staff.”

Meaning that the old rules apply and it's the PSC that is liable for the back taxes if an investigation proves that the prior engagement was inside IR35, not the client/agency.

Not that there will be no investigations into prior engagements.

All in all seems legit.

[northernladyuk]

87% take home on £100K? Impressive. 96% on £50K?

Maybe you could get close to that if you pop £40K into your pension. And if a person on £100K as an employee who salary-sacrifices £40K into a pension isn't paying £34K.

This is the kind of stuff that convinces people that HMRC are not interested in fairness. This is totally dishonest of them.

When your tax authority engages in lying propaganda rather than just actually helping people calculate their taxes accurately, they need a complete house-cleaning.

They are conveniently ignoring CT, because that isn't the person paying tax, is it?

[WordIsBond]

They are conveniently ignoring CT, because that isn't the person paying tax, is it?

Of course they are.

If they counted CT on £90K profit, so that the contractor pays £31K (compared to the employee paying £34K), it just wouldn't look so impressive, would it?

As noted, the employee number doesn't count the ERNI, but they don't want to count that because they don't want the masses to twig to just how much tax is being paid on their earnings that could potentially be take home for them.