Public sector retrospectively reviewing Public sector retrospectively reviewing - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Super poster

    Hobosapien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    LA - la la fantasy land
    Posts
    2,711

    Default

    I wonder if any re-review with guidance from HMRC will also uncover contracts blanket deemed inside that should be outside. I won't hold my breath on that.

    At least the retrospective aspect of active contracts is being covered in that the change of status doesn't affect the contract prior to the new review date due to 'new guidance' from HMRC, so a new contract is offered to differentiate between the old and new status.

    Seems fair to me, hopefully they're learning from the fallout of the loan charge retrospective action, and fits with the conceptual practice of not needing to apply a status change mid contract (causing retrospective tax for the period prior to the change) as the contract is terminated and a new one issued.

    I wonder if any changes to CEST would also trigger a re-review situation (otherwise what is this 'new guidance'?), and if so how often HMRC are changing CEST to create more work and uncertainty amongst those using it for the initial status determination.
    Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on.

  2. #12

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cojak View Post
    Why do you think that I’ve stuck with IPSE for the last 4 years and will do so for the next 2?
    I was a member for almost 20 years, but didn't renew this year. I've bought IR35 investigation insurance directly. However, what I learnt and hadn't realised, is that the legal insurance policy holder is IPSE itself. So, there could always be a chance that IPSE would veto any claim made by a member even before it got as far as the insurers. Given my acrimonious relationship with IPSE, that was a possibility that I couldn't risk. The additional perks that were being offered were of little use to me. I'm now the policyholder, so that scenario doesn't exist any more.

  3. #13

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hobosapien View Post
    I wonder if any re-review with guidance from HMRC will also uncover contracts blanket deemed inside that should be outside. I won't hold my breath on that.

    At least the retrospective aspect of active contracts is being covered in that the change of status doesn't affect the contract prior to the new review date due to 'new guidance' from HMRC, so a new contract is offered to differentiate between the old and new status.

    Seems fair to me, hopefully they're learning from the fallout of the loan charge retrospective action, and fits with the conceptual practice of not needing to apply a status change mid contract (causing retrospective tax for the period prior to the change) as the contract is terminated and a new one issued.

    I wonder if any changes to CEST would also trigger a re-review situation (otherwise what is this 'new guidance'?), and if so how often HMRC are changing CEST to create more work and uncertainty amongst those using it for the initial status determination.
    I'm not certain (it's not referenced in the official stuff I've seen) but I get the feeling they are tying the changes in CEST to this 'new guidance' - it's been oft mentioned how can they change CEST and still stand by previous decisions so I think this is how they're dressing that up. That's just my inference though.

    I am now considering whether the higher tax levels predicted in Y1 are actually due to most contracts being inside and they drop off in Y2 due to a predicted drop in contracting. Previously I thought they were looking at historical gains but I'm not as sure. Looking at the Queen's Speech, whilst brief, it does seem to indicate a desired progression towards 1 form of 'work' in all aspects.

  4. #14

    Contractor Among Contractors

    CheeseSlice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melting on your hamburger
    Posts
    1,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ComplianceLady View Post
    I'm aware that the public sector have confirmed they have started to re-review the contracts assessed since 2017 with the understanding that those judged outside will be inside.
    Any links about this? Its quite a sweeping statement.. does the whole of the public sector act in unison like this?

  5. #15

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CheeseSlice View Post
    Any links about this? Its quite a sweeping statement.. does the whole of the public sector act in unison like this?
    I can't share the detail I'm afraid. I've seen confirmation issued across two specific public sector bodies, within which it was specifically referenced that they have checked that the same process is underway 'across the public sector'. Reference is made to different levels of progression but it is pretty clear that the process is the same across all public sector bodies.

  6. #16

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    19,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ComplianceLady View Post
    Kind of yes. The intent at this point is to just switch contracts and HMRC have given an informal nod to the fact they won't pursue the public sector body (as the idea is HMRC didn't have enough time/resource to fully support each body with guidance) but there's no mention of contracts ongoing now that flip from outside to inside that were in place pre-2017 (when the contractor was liable).
    That's the crux really, what is informal today can become very formal tomorrow with the right strategy (with money and resources) in place.

    I don't trust HMRC any further than I can throw them on this.

  7. #17

    TPAFKAk2p2

    mudskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Null island
    Posts
    26,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohntheBike View Post
    ...there could always be a chance that IPSE would veto any claim made by a member even before it got as far as the insurers.
    That's just complete bollocks. The idea that IPSE would maliciously or otherwise veto your claim is paranoid delusion. However, if your trust in them is that far eroded, it probably is best that you have found yourself another provider.

  8. #18

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cojak View Post
    That's the crux really, what is informal today can become very formal tomorrow with the right strategy (with money and resources) in place.

    I don't trust HMRC any further than I can throw them on this.
    I get that, I think the fact they're all 'on the same side' plays a big part in this. My experience of being on that side was it held much more water what one org said to another, if the other org was in the private sector it was more changeable.

  9. #19

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mudskipper View Post
    That's just complete bollocks. The idea that IPSE would maliciously or otherwise veto your claim is paranoid delusion. However, if your trust in them is that far eroded, it probably is best that you have found yourself another provider.
    what I was trying to say is that IPSE themselves could decide to advise the claimant that their case couldn't be supported because it would be unlikely to succeed, thus not passing a claim to the insurers for their opinion.

    and yes, my trust in them had been seriously eroded to the point where I decided not to renew my membership this year. Given that you have no idea of the accumulated details which led me to this conclusion, I guess your opinion has no merit.

  10. #20

    TPAFKAk2p2

    mudskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Null island
    Posts
    26,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohntheBike View Post
    what I was trying to say is that IPSE themselves could decide to advise the claimant that their case couldn't be supported because it would be unlikely to succeed, thus not passing a claim to the insurers for their opinion.
    And what I'm trying to say is that that is steaming male bovine excrement. IPSE do not make claim decisions - they simply pass on the claim to the insurer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •