So...anybody ask for any of this?

[Zero Liability]

Another piece on FLCs, though still hazy on the details. Also, it mentions no need for concurrent clients - this isn't even a pillar of IR35. It may mean you're likelier than not to be outside and less likely to be investigated, but why is it even mentioned along with the ROS? Possibly because it is stipulated as a freelancer criterion in other legal jurisdictions.

Why the UK should form a Freelancer Limited Company (FLC) :: Contractor UK

All it seems to refer to is a 'fair' fixed dividend/salary split (ratio?).

[mudskipper]

Interesting, and a lot more information than we've previously seen.

I did smirk at this bit though -

"The other advantages of a FLC include limited liability status, simplified accounting and the ability to register for benefits between contracts."

The author clearly hasn't met psychocandy.

[Coalman]

I've just read the CUK article on FLC (and most of last night the IPSE forum threads on this) and I still can't believe IPSE have not consulted their members more on this. The arrogance of some of the posts is quite astounding.

I don't post much, and usually avoid serious debate here but this will effect all of us in some form or other.

As has been stated by others, the risk that (through agencies) being forced on us has not been reasonably debated in my view. The 'Opt-out' has been a great success. And before we get the take them to court route, it should have been thought about BEFORE legislation not AFTER. I do not have the financial resources to follow up on this, nor would I if the FLC was forced upon us.

I do not disagree with an FLC in principle, as long as there are thought through safeguards against them being forced upon us. These safeguards have not been adequately explained.

As for concurrent contracts being a pointer to outside IR35, when did that happen, its contract based, not company based.

[TheFaQQer]

Another piece on FLCs, though still hazy on the details. Also, it mentions no need for concurrent clients - this isn't even a pillar of IR35. It may mean you're likelier than not to be outside and less likely to be investigated, but why is it even mentioned along with the ROS? Possibly because it is stipulated as a freelancer criterion in other legal jurisdictions.

Why the UK should form a Freelancer Limited Company (FLC) :: Contractor UK

All it seems to refer to is a 'fair' fixed dividend/salary split (ratio?).

No ability to income split with a spouse:

Cue the FLC, a single-shareholder-only structure...

[jamesbrown]

Presumably this is the research, linked from the above article, that was being referred to earlier:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwGK...hjN2NjT00/edit

I haven't read through this yet, but the commentary in the article hardly inspires confidence:

"Cue the FLC, a single-shareholder-only structure, run by the key income generator who has no need to have multiple/concurrent clients on the go"

Er, what need to have concurrent clients? This isn't Australia.

"FLC owners would also be able to gain tax credits for sickness, maternity, paternity and other leave."

Who on earth wants any of this?

"a contractor could ignore it and continue to operate as an ordinary limited company and face down IR35 as normal"

Please. This legislation isn't cost-effective as it stands, and reducing the number of contractors potentially within its remit doesn't make it any more cost-effective. If IPSE believes that contractors wouldn't be shoe-horned into an FLC eventually, they're delusional.

"some individuals to continue to run as standard liability companies"

The phrasing throughout this article is irksome. It comes across as being written by someone that doesn't really want to run a business. Rather, they want self-employment with the comfort blanket of limited liability and some certainty over IR35 (which most legitimate contractors believe we have in any case).

[TheFaQQer]

Bear in mind that the author of the CUK article, whilst being a founder member of the PCG, isn't a CC or board member, nor a member of staff who wrote the manifesto.

I'm not saying that his view isn't absolutely spot on (and since he has had discussions with PCG about the idea then it may well be), but it could be very different from how IPSE want this to pan out.

[eek]

Nice to see that all the problems are highlighted within the document. What is really worrying is the author sees certain major issues as benefits rather than fundamental flaws within the idea...

I particularly dislike the single shareholder bit. Contracting is a risk for everyone in a family (yes it has upsides but it has grotty potential downsides). Its only fair that if contractors believe their spouse deserves something for sharing the risks they can do so....

[Pondlife]

Bear in mind that the author of the CUK article, whilst being a founder member of the PCG, isn't a CC or board member, nor a member of staff who wrote the manifesto.

I'm not saying that his view isn't absolutely spot on (and since he has had discussions with PCG about the idea then it may well be), but it could be very different from how IPSE want this to pan out.

This.

When I read the article it seemed like an IPSE sanctioned piece. But on further investigation it's not.

[TheFaQQer]

Nice to see that all the problems are highlighted within the document. What is really worrying is the author sees certain major issues as benefits rather than fundamental flaws within the idea...

I particularly dislike the single shareholder bit. Contracting is a risk for everyone in a family (yes it has upsides but it has grotty potential downsides). Its only fair that if contractors believe their spouse deserves something for sharing the risks they can do so....

Given the fight over Arctic, I can't see that bit being official policy.

I may be mistaken, though.

[Zero Liability]

"a contractor could ignore it and continue to operate as an ordinary limited company and face down IR35 as normal"

Please. This legislation isn't cost-effective as it stands, and reducing the number of contractors potentially within its remit doesn't make it any more cost-effective. If IPSE believes that contractors wouldn't be shoe-horned into an FLC eventually, they're delusional.

If anything it'll likely worsen. This could be an implicit admission of defeat on that front.