IR35 - Write to your MP

[webberg]

However, there appears to be some activity around supporting a case in the ET. I guess we'll know soon enough what transpires from that, if anything.

Do you know who is doing this?

What support do they have?

What financial resource do they have?

I ask because I'm interested and also because I have resources and access to data that I'd be happy to contribute to the right cause - for free.

[webberg]

IPSE is running a canpaign, but it is directed at Johnson and HMT and working from the inside on behalf of its membership and using independent research material, so it is not nearly as obvious as LCAG's or Chaplin's.

However I doubt any of them will actually prevail, IR35 is here to stay and HMG does not appear to be interested in any representations about how damaging its 2020 plans will be to the UK economy.

Thank you for the information on IPSE.

I agree with your view.

[JohntheBike]

Do you know who is doing this?

What support do they have?

What financial resource do they have?

I ask because I'm interested and also because I have resources and access to data that I'd be happy to contribute to the right cause - for free.

There was a thread posted there of a member who was working in the public sector who had been engaging with their client over an "inside" determination. They had not made any progress so were taking the client to the ET. My understanding is that IPSE was supporting the case. However, since I'm now banned from posting there again, it seems that any mention of cowboys, indians and chiefs is now regarded as racist, and that I am unlikely to renew my membership before the ban expires, I can't provide any further details.

[BlueSharp]

There was a thread posted there of a member who was working in the public sector who had been engaging with their client over an "inside" determination. They had not made any progress so were taking the client to the ET. My understanding is that IPSE was supporting the case. However, since I'm now banned from posting there again, it seems that any mention of cowboys, indians and chiefs is now regarded as racist, and that I am unlikely to renew my membership before the ban expires, I can't provide any further details.

Do you know who is doing this?

What support do they have?

What financial resource do they have?

I ask because I'm interested and also because I have resources and access to data that I'd be happy to contribute to the right cause - for free.

This is the thread in question, the o.p is the one going via the ET:
Log in | IPSE Community | Forums

"That is basically why we are pursuing this. Yes, the IPSE is working with me on this case. There has already been talk of the client offering to settle, but we did not entertain the discussion. As far as I am aware we are challenging the basic assumption that there is any separation between being an employee for employment rights and for tax purposes; We don't think there should be. There are a few arguments which cross the boundary and are included in both arguments. This has been ongoing since January and we are only just getting to the initial hearing now, so i expect this will drag on for a little while."

[JohntheBike]

This is the thread in question, the o.p is the one going via the ET:
Log in | IPSE Community | Forums

"That is basically why we are pursuing this. Yes, the IPSE is working with me on this case. There has already been talk of the client offering to settle, but we did not entertain the discussion. As far as I am aware we are challenging the basic assumption that there is any separation between being an employee for employment rights and for tax purposes; We don't think there should be. There are a few arguments which cross the boundary and are included in both arguments. This has been ongoing since January and we are only just getting to the initial hearing now, so i expect this will drag on for a little while."

So IPSE had at last accepted the message that there should be no employee taxes without employee benefits. Perhaps if they'd accepted this message earlier and been forceful in putting it forward, we might not have found ourselves in quite such a position as we do now.

[malvolio]

So IPSE had at last accepted the message that there should be no employee taxes without employee benefits. Perhaps if they'd accepted this message earlier and been forceful in putting it forward, we might not have found ourselves in quite such a position as we do now.

I'm not going to argue the point yet again, but the world is changing and this has nothing to do with your 20-year-old case but the rather different point that clients will in all senses be hiring employees not service providers, and so those employees should get all relevant taxes. If the client doesn't want to do that then the solution is in their hands - hire service providers.

It's not a U-turn but a recognition of a new set of circumstances. You should try it sometime...

[BlueSharp]

So IPSE had at last accepted the message that there should be no employee taxes without employee benefits. Perhaps if they'd accepted this message earlier and been forceful in putting it forward, we might not have found ourselves in quite such a position as we do now.

I don't think that is true, timing is everything with changes like this. Prior to April 2020 the status quo worked well for an outside ir-35 Ltd contractor, that ship has now sailed and the battle is now how can a client make this determination while arguing that the contract is not an employee if an inside determination is given.

Personally I think it will be either outside contracts or fixed term employment contracts. The concept of working inside ir-35 with no employment rights will be killed by HR departments when the ET claims role in.

[Invisiblehand]

Yes, Chaplin is having a go

I'm still waiting for him to "knock it out of the park" like he was saying he would for months and months.

[webberg]

So IPSE had at last accepted the message that there should be no employee taxes without employee benefits.

Let me correct something here.

If somebody is within IR35 definitions, they do NOT pay employee taxes.

They pay tax and NIC at the same rate as employees and in the same way (i.e. deduction at source by the payer) but this is courtesy of the intermediaries legislation and NOT the rules in ITEPA that charge tax on remuneration or employment income.

Even if I did agree that paying employee taxes entitles you to employee benefits, (and I'm not sure I do), I remain confused as to why IPSE have taken this up.

[webberg]

I'm not going to argue the point yet again, but the world is changing and this has nothing to do with your 20-year-old case but the rather different point that clients will in all senses be hiring employees not service providers, and so those employees should get all relevant taxes. If the client doesn't want to do that then the solution is in their hands - hire service providers.

It's not a U-turn but a recognition of a new set of circumstances. You should try it sometime...

I agree that the world today is very different from 20 years ago and cases from that time which are very fact specific have little or no relevance today.

Move on.