IR35 - Back to first principles.... IR35 - Back to first principles.... - Page 13
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Posts 121 to 130 of 146
  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WordIsBond View Post
    Well, you could institute a dividend tax to discourage tax-motivated incorporation, thus narrowing significantly the gap between employment and self-employment taxation. Then, for one-man bands, you could remove the employment allowance (since it is intended to encourage employment, not be a nice bonus for one-man bands. And then, you could simply STOP since you've done enough.

    But if you really, really need to do more, narrow the gap further between employment and non-employment taxes. That is simple and eliminates the need to establish somewhat arbitrary distinctions between what is and isn't employment for tax purposes.
    You should work for the Treasury Wait a second...

    I wouldn't argue against tax simplification as the end goal (for everyone concerned).

  2. #122

    Umbrella Queen

    LisaContractorUmbrella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colchester
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    It depends how you formulate it. I think it applies to "skilled" work, but obviously not to generic support workers for whom SDC will almost certainly apply (I don't mean that to come across in a condescending way, but I think it's a pointer in the context of SDC).
    Yes exactly
    Connect with me on LinkedIn

    Follow us on Twitter.

    ContractorUK Best Forum Advisor 2015

  3. #123

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    You should work for the Treasury
    https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ut/procurement

    Their procurement pipeline is way out of date.

  4. #124

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    257

    Default

    interesting point regarding liability.

    Lets imagine a claims comes in retrospectively, the client then pursues the contractor and in doing so drums up £100k in legal nonsense (ok £100k is an exageration but you get my point).

    Many a warchest (hate that phrase) will be bled dry by legal fees rather than the tax clawback. How do we protect against that mess?

  5. #125

    Nice But Dim

    DaveB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    19,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danglekt View Post
    interesting point regarding liability.

    Lets imagine a claims comes in retrospectively, the client then pursues the contractor and in doing so drums up £100k in legal nonsense (ok £100k is an exageration but you get my point).

    Many a warchest (hate that phrase) will be bled dry by legal fees rather than the tax clawback. How do we protect against that mess?
    Would your PI cover it or are we looking at a whole new insurance product ala IR35 cover?
    "Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
    Would your PI cover it or are we looking at a whole new insurance product ala IR35 cover?
    No, PI wouldn't cover it. In the current regime, IPSE and others offer legal expenses cover ("professional expenses insurance"). In addition to that, you can get tax liability insurance (covering tax, interest and penalties). However, if there's a material change in risk, there will be a material change in cost (probably not a material change in risk w/ client as gatekeeper, because the bar will be high).

  7. #127

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
    Would your PI cover it or are we looking at a whole new insurance product ala IR35 cover?
    It would have to be a new product. It would be tied to the contract, and the client would be the beneficiary for any liability they have, so that if the contractor Ltd co goes out of business the client is still covered.

    And either clients would purchase it directly or they would force contractors to purchase it on their behalf. That would be a negotiation point, like rate and other things -- who pays for the client's IR35 insurance?

  8. #128

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    259

    Default not if under SDC

    But if a contractor is under the client's SDC, there's not much scope for pursuing the contractor legally.

    It's why, pre IR35, that agency contracts tried to show that contractors were under the client's SDC, so that there was no come back on the agency.

  9. #129

    TPAFKAk2p2

    mudskipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Null island
    Posts
    25,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teapot418 View Post
    I ran a google search and filtered on results before 2002 - it does appear (as some have claimed) as if it has always been SD or C, and not always with the not! - but I couldn't find a result which was actually a date stamped document, so ICBW.
    Tried this - everything seems to come back dated 1/2/2001. Not convinced the results are accurate...

  10. #130

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    117

    Default Loophole to all of this

    IR35 was poorly written, difficult to police and easy to circumvent. Everything I have read so far on the new issues can be circumvented by contractors buddying up and forming a ltd with 2 directors proving business services to 2 or more clients. Thus, such a company falls outside the definition of "an employment intermediary" and SDC, IR35 etc doesn't apply.

Posting Permissions

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