• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Public sector retrospectively reviewing

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    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.

    Comment


      #12
      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.

      Comment


        #13
        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.

        Comment


          #14
          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?

          Comment


            #15
            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.

            Comment


              #16
              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.
              "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
              - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

              Comment


                #17
                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.

                Comment


                  #18
                  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.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    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.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X