Worst case scenario

[GB9]

Hello Just to clarify - from the consultation document:

"The Government is proposing to remove tax relief for ordinary commuting (in general, home to work travel and subsistence expenses) for workers who are:

Supplying personal services
Engaged through an employment intermediary (including umbrella companies, certain employment businesses and personal service companies) and
subject (or to the right of) supervision or direction or control of any person

Thank you.

So the word 'and' is in there.

So they are proposing:

If you are through an intermediary and subject to sdc then you are in ir35

And

Anyone through an intermediary is by hmrc default, subject to sdc

[jamesbrown]

Thank you.

So the word 'and' is in there.

So they are proposing:

If you are through an intermediary and subject to sdc then you are in ir35

And

Anyone through an intermediary is by hmrc default, subject to sdc

In terms of IR35, they are "discussing" rather than proposing (and that's a separate document).

According to Lisa's reading of s44(2), anyone through an employment agency (not sure whether this is an intermediary in general or an employment agency in the traditional sense?) will be presumed subject to SDC. I still think the main risk here is about the client being gatekeeper and unwilling to counter the presumption about the absence of SDC, whether direct or through an agency, so I'm not sure the employment agency (intermediary?) nuance is that important, but the practical implications are, in any case, quite clear, namely that it won't matter what the courts decide in status cases, because it won't get that far. Unlike the agency legislation, changes to expenses and IR35 will cast a wide net w/r to income within scope (i.e. expenses and dividends).

[eek]

In terms of IR35, they are "discussing" rather than proposing (and that's a separate document).

According to Lisa's reading of s44(2), anyone through an employment agency (not sure whether this is an intermediary in general or an employment agency in the traditional sense?) will be presumed subject to SDC. I still think the main risk here is about the client being gatekeeper and unwilling to counter the presumption about the absence of SDC, whether direct or through an agency, so I'm not sure the employment agency (intermediary?) nuance is that important, but the practical implications are, in any case, quite clear, namely that it won't matter what the courts decide in status cases, because it won't get that far. Unlike the agency legislation, changes to expenses and IR35 will cast a wide net w/r to income within scope (i.e. expenses and dividends).

See my comment earlier on.

When this was first mentioned S44 explicitly excluded PSCs and PSCs were excluded from the expenses discussion document.
Now in the consultation S44 has reappeared with no document exclusing PSCs and PSCs are included in the expenses discussion.

It may be an oversight. It may not be...

[jamesbrown]

See my comment earlier on.

When this was first mentioned S44 explicitly excluded PSCs and PSCs were excluded from the expenses discussion document.
Now in the consultation S44 has reappeared with no document exclusing PSCs and PSCs are included in the expenses discussion.

It may be an oversight. It may not be...

There's no oversight. The IR35 discussion document (and possibly the expenses consultation too?) explicitly notes that some recent representations pointed to 'risks of incorporation that the legislation on false self-employment might be having' (to paraphrase). It was a straightforward shift in position following the representations made. If that's what you're saying too, I agree. However, I'm still not sure this matters because PSCs are in-scope for IR35, by definition, and we're talking about lifting something from s44 (with updated wording, which I still haven't bloody found in full ) and applying it to IR35.

I just have a sense that we're getting lost in details here. Details matter, of course, but the bigger picture has been rather clear since the expenses consultation and IR35 discussion documents were revealed; PSCs are within scope for all of this and the client will be gatekeeper, meaning that all PSCs could be profoundly (and equally) impacted, not only those working through a traditional employment agency. The agency legislation has a restricted focus (i.e. only "employment income" outside of "excluded services" is within scope), but the expenses changes and IR35 legislation cover all remaining income, and I can't see there being excluded services for IR35 (i.e. working offsite, working from home, or being a professional mod or rocker, which puts you outside the agency legislation).

[Would rather not be named]

Time to chase direct leads more? Perhaps clients will be more receptive to direct contracts faced with the prospect of higher rates to compensate for IR35. The death of recruitment agencies for contracting perhaps?

Can't see it. Where I live companies are as a growing trend seemingly recruiting increasingly and in other cases solely via agencies.

[darrylmg]

Does anyone know what's going to happen to the travel industry when we all start working remotely?
Since we won't want to pay tax on T&S.

[SueEllen]

Does anyone know what's going to happen to the travel industry when we all start working remotely?
Since we won't want to pay tax on T&S.

Smaller B&Bs will go out of business unless they have enough summer bookings to keep them going.

The larger hotel chains will be fine.