OK. I've not had the opportunity (and I'm not sure I want it) of auditing payslips from a range of umbrellas and for the moment at least I'm prepared to accept that greater knowledge you have in this area.
We are I think seeing rogue umbrellas being pushed more and more to the fringes.
Those who offer absurdly high take home rates through some form of reclassifying income as something else (usually a loan) are now being called out more often. This is however being done by individuals and advisers and NOT - for reasons I do not understand - by all those organisations in this space who claim some form of accreditation.
There is understandably some trepidation about naming and shaming because this comes with a risk of being sued.
However, HMRC is the great conundrum here. They will name and shame an individual who owes £25k in tax, but will not do the same for a dodgy umbrella who could happily walk away with many times that amount. Why not?
We do see a lot of what I would describe as sharp practice.
We see gross daily rates being divided into pay, expenses, participation in reward/discount schemes, pension contributions, etc often without any rhyme or reason. I suspect that conversations with those who believe the rate an umbrella quotes and the reality in their first pay check are "interesting".
Whilst I understand that every umbrella wants a competitive advantage over the others, achieving this via slight of hand or dodgy arithmetic is surely to heaven a short sighted strategy?
There is however no appetite with the umbrellas or those accrediting them, to have a standard template that they can all use and which allows direct comparisons. I'm not holding my breath that we will ever achieve that either.
We are I think seeing rogue umbrellas being pushed more and more to the fringes.
Those who offer absurdly high take home rates through some form of reclassifying income as something else (usually a loan) are now being called out more often. This is however being done by individuals and advisers and NOT - for reasons I do not understand - by all those organisations in this space who claim some form of accreditation.
There is understandably some trepidation about naming and shaming because this comes with a risk of being sued.
However, HMRC is the great conundrum here. They will name and shame an individual who owes £25k in tax, but will not do the same for a dodgy umbrella who could happily walk away with many times that amount. Why not?
We do see a lot of what I would describe as sharp practice.
We see gross daily rates being divided into pay, expenses, participation in reward/discount schemes, pension contributions, etc often without any rhyme or reason. I suspect that conversations with those who believe the rate an umbrella quotes and the reality in their first pay check are "interesting".
Whilst I understand that every umbrella wants a competitive advantage over the others, achieving this via slight of hand or dodgy arithmetic is surely to heaven a short sighted strategy?
There is however no appetite with the umbrellas or those accrediting them, to have a standard template that they can all use and which allows direct comparisons. I'm not holding my breath that we will ever achieve that either.
Comment