BET's scrapped

[Contreras]

Many Thanks to Ipse and other organizations that have lobbied successfully to get these withdrawn.

That statement is at odds with the evidence presented to the House of Lords Commitee in April this year.

... would like to see these tests refined, assuming IR35 is not to be repealed or suspended. PCG, at the time, proposed a different scoring methodology, which I think would make things a lot clearer. We proposed a further six questions on top of those that were adopted, which, again, I think would be a useful addition ...

PCG believes HMRC, in conjunction with the IR35 forum and other relevant stakeholders, should continue to refine the BETs. The BETs should make it easier for individual contractors to understand their status.

[IR35 should be temporarily suspended] If this is not possible, then an overhaul of the Business Entity Tests (BETs) is the least that should be considered by the Government. The scoring of the tests should be revisited to ensure they are less sensitive to small changes in the circumstances of an individual

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...esevvolume.pdf

Both the FSB and the REC were of the opinion that the BETs have added more confusion than clarification over whether a contract falls within or without IR35. The PCG also argued that the tests require revision, suggesting that they are too sensitive to small changes in the circumstances of an individual and that the scoring of the tests is unrealistic and unfair ...

http://www.publications.parliament.u...al/160/160.pdf

Everyone else and their dog thought the BETs, even in the proposed original form, were a bad idea, including (from memory) a fairly vocal opposition from the membership posting on the internal forums at the time. But now we have to thank IPSE for the withdrawal of the scheme!

[malvolio]

That statement is at odds with the evidence presented to the House of Lords Commitee in April this year.







http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...esevvolume.pdf



http://www.publications.parliament.u...al/160/160.pdf

Everyone else and their dog thought the BETs, even in the proposed original form, were a bad idea, including (from memory) a fairly vocal opposition from the membership posting on the internal forums at the time. But now we have to thank IPSE for the withdrawal of the scheme!

Not just IPSE, ICAEW, CIOT, REC and ATSCo plus several independents such as Kate Cottrell thought a binary mechanism to identify those who are genuinely in business and hence out of scope of IR35 was a valid approach. The only ones that protested were those who thought (wrongly) that they couldn't actually meet that requirement and the BETs used by HMRC were a million miles away for the entirely sensible original proposal. If you're going to argue, at least et your facts straight.

The BETs as originally conceived would have worked and would have killed off a lot of subsequent issues; the Alexander Review that led to the abortion that is Capita's CL1 cock-up, for example, would not have been needed. It's HMRC that screwed them up and the IR35 Forum has been protesting HMRC's model ever since it was revealed to them.

The discussion with the Lords committee was about the logic of having such tests, not defending the version that HMRC saw fit to invent.

[tarbera]

Not just IPSE, ICAEW, CIOT, REC and ATSCo plus several independents such as Kate Cottrell .

You forgot CUK keyboard warriors.

[malvolio]

You forgot CUK keyboard warriors.

I always aim to do so...

[TheFaQQer]

That statement is at odds with the evidence presented to the House of Lords Commitee in April this year.

Bear in mind that the testimony given to the House of Lords doesn't always reflect the direction that IPSE wants to go - compare and contrast page 329 of the HoL evidence with the IPSE manifesto...

[tarbera]

Bear in mind that the testimony given to the House of Lords doesn't always reflect the direction that IPSE wants to go - compare and contrast page 329 of the HoL evidence with the IPSE manifesto...

Bear in mind also the constant changing lobbing battleground and need to adapt quickly to situations that present themselves at the time.

[TheFaQQer]

Bear in mind also the constant changing lobbing battleground and need to adapt quickly to situations that present themselves at the time.

Indeed - the battleground must have changed significantly to warrant a complete U-turn without consulting the wider membership.