Discussion document on IR35 published

[webberg]

The Consultation process is in some ways a sop to public opinion and often in no more than lip service to the process when decisions have already been made. It is however a key part of how you can influence, however slightly, the outcome.

The best way to exert influence is EVIDENCE.

As Lisa says - without it, your chance of changing anything is NIL.

BIG GROUP will be putting an evidence based response in. BIG GROUP will hope to coordinate that with other groups and individuals.

Have a think and dig out numbers and contribute.

[DaveB]

The Consultation process is in some ways a sop to public opinion and often in no more than lip service to the process when decisions have already been made. It is however a key part of how you can influence, however slightly, the outcome.

The best way to exert influence is EVIDENCE.

As Lisa says - without it, your chance of changing anything is NIL.

BIG GROUP will be putting an evidence based response in. BIG GROUP will hope to coordinate that with other groups and individuals.

Have a think and dig out numbers and contribute.

Do you want info from non-BG members? I'm not affected by any of the APN/Scheme issues so not a member of BG or NTRT.

[DaveB]

Yes, I think it's worth considering, although I think they'd err on the side of draconian rules to avoid returning to the problem later. The motivation IMO was low paid workers incorporating for tax purposes, on the one hand, and high-paid off payroll arrangements in the public sector on the other. We're collateral to a large degree, but not collateral that they care about. Off-payroll arrangements in the public sector have been tackled without the need for controlling persons. Let's see how the new agency rules impact the former. Now they're talking about revisions before the impacts of the recent changes can be seen, and these changes have the potential to increase collateral a lot.

If they really want to do that they could simply remove tax relief from the company, rather than making reimbused expenses taxable income. Easy to implement, increases tax revenues without impacting peoples personal income.

[riffpie]

KPMG are the latest big co to offer an 'all in one consultancy' service ie from dev to testing.

The writing is on the wall. Its not if but when.

I had Arrows group on the phone a bunch of times recently, telling me all about their new "professional services" division that is hiring for some secret project or other that they have the entire contract on.

[tractor]

That's exactly the sort of information I think that they want eek - numbers and how those numbers would change if the rules change and whether or not those changes would make you think about not contracting in future

Unfortunately, this has the potential downside of them taking the highest outliers and using that to beef up their own estimates, which can only further justify the position they are taking here.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

[DaveB]

After a quick chat with Lisa, this should be a good format for submitting your info.

Current annual costs based on last 6 months of contracts <Optional, state if you have more than one client>

~£x in T&S costs. ~x% of Turnover. ~£x in tax relief.

Cost to me if I had to pay tax on reimbursed expenses would be ~x% of my personal income.

These are legitimate costs that I would not otherwise incur as a permanent employe, as I would live within commuting distance of my employer if I was.

If the proposals go through they will significantly affect my ability to travel for contracts and to support multiple clients as it will make it more costly for me to travel between client sites as needed.

The more the better, so get on with it!

[DaveB]

Unfortunately, this has the potential downside of them taking the highest outliers and using that to beef up their own estimates, which can only further justify the position they are taking here.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

Not if the figures are avergaed out prior to submission.

e.g. From 1000 contractors surveyed the results indicated average T&S costs to be £x pa equating to x% of Turnover with expected cost of x% of personal income should the proposals be enforced.

x% of those surveyed indicated that the proposed changes would have a significant impact on their abilty to meet client demand for flexability and availability in supplying services.


Or something like that.

[tractor]

.....

Not if the figures are avergaed out prior to submission.

e.g. From 1000 contractors surveyed the results indicated average T&S costs to be £x pa equating to x% of Turnover with expected cost of x% of personal income should the proposals be enforced.

x% of those surveyed indicated that the proposed changes would have a significant impact on their abilty to meet client demand for flexability and availability in supplying services.


Or something like that.

Agreed but we have to bear in mind that the most likely respondents will be those with expenses, those with negligible or none are unlikely to respond which will skew the average.

[DaveB]

Agreed but we have to bear in mind that the most likely respondents will be those with expenses, those with negligible or none are unlikely to respond which will skew the average.

You mean in the same way that HMRC are selective in their use of figures?

Either way, if we submit nothing we have no chance. The more people who contact Lisa, IPSE and BigGroup to provide info the more chance we have, regardless how how much they claim in expenses.

[LondonManc]

Agreed but we have to bear in mind that the most likely respondents will be those with expenses, those with negligible or none are unlikely to respond which will skew the average.

Which is good.