Worst case scenario

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

"Where a worker is engaged by or through an agency, there will be a presumption that there is (or there is the right of) supervision, direction, or control over the worker". Towards the bottom of the page here: ESM2037 - Agency and temporary workers: agency legislation - provisions from 6 April 2014: supervision, direction or control (as to the manner in which the worker provides the services)

[mudskipper]

"Where a worker is engaged by or through an agency, there will be a presumption that there is (or there is the right of) supervision, direction, or control over the worker". Towards the bottom of the page here: ESM2037 - Agency and temporary workers: agency legislation - provisions from 6 April 2014: supervision, direction or control (as to the manner in which the worker provides the services)

Thanks Lisa


Edit: Maybe I'm just not getting it, but that also says the agency should be operating PAYE. I know my agency sent me a letter saying something along the lines of agreeing that AWR did not apply to my engagement - is this not an extension of the same thing?

[eek]

"Where a worker is engaged by or through an agency, there will be a presumption that there is (or there is the right of) supervision, direction, or control over the worker". Towards the bottom of the page here: ESM2037 - Agency and temporary workers: agency legislation - provisions from 6 April 2014: supervision, direction or control (as to the manner in which the worker provides the services)

Any idea how that fits in with https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ITEPA_2003.pdf which states that PSC aren't affected in Section 44 except for tax avoidance schemes..

[fidot]

If the intention is ...

Thanks Lisa


Edit: Maybe I'm just not getting it, but that also says the agency should be operating PAYE. I know my agency sent me a letter saying something along the lines of agreeing that AWR did not apply to my engagement - is this not an extension of the same thing?

If the intention is to disallow expenses only where the agency should be operating PAYE, then that doesn't seem too unreasonable. I somehow doubt that is either the intention or how it will be implemented.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Any idea how that fits in with https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ITEPA_2003.pdf which states that PSC aren't affected in Section 44 except for tax avoidance schemes..

As we know that PSC's will be affected by the changes for T&S and that the 'criteria' for determining SDC (including the presumption that SDC will apply if a worker is engaged through an agency) will be lifted from section 44 (2) we can only assume that a PSC engaged through an agency will be considered to be under SDC.

IANAL so it may well be ripped apart by members of the legal profession and different interpretations will be made but it seemed to me to be a pretty straightforward answer to a pretty straightforward question (surprisingly for HMRC )

[Jog On]

Sorry if this is a stupid question and has been asked already but...

If we get forced inside IR35 and the client is tasked with paying the PAYE/NIC - does that legally lump them with employer NIC as they would be hiring us as temporary individuals/self employed with no LTD involved?

What gets me about IR35 is the double or no NIC thing....

[jamesbrown]

Sorry if this is a stupid question and has been asked already but...

If we get forced inside IR35 and the client is tasked with paying the PAYE/NIC - does that legally lump them with employer NIC as they would be hiring us as temporary individuals/self employed with no LTD involved?

What gets me about IR35 is the double or no NIC thing....

Mechanics aside, all NICs are coming from a fixed pot of money (from the client). So, yes. Remember, the employer NICs may not be obvious to many permies, but make no mistake they are paying for them.

[Jog On]

Mechanics aside, all NICs are coming from a fixed pot of money (from the client). So, yes. Remember, the employer NICs may not be obvious to many permies, but make no mistake they are paying for them.

I wonder how all this will be implemented... will we be temporary individuals, self employed, still running LTD companies? I think IR35 1.0 was simple when it was HMRC vs LTD, this sounds like a potential clusterfudge...

I wonder how much they expect to recoup for it..:/

Another thing that gets me is when people say "As a contractor you earn so much more than a permie" - well yeah of course we do because we choose the insecurity and risk that all these "Oh I could never go contract I need my job security" people choose not to....

That extra pay is to cover bench time and is the reward part of the whole risk/reward thing. Not low hanging fruit for an opportunistic smash-and-grab from Hector...

And we incorporate LTD companies because without them we cannot get work as agencies won't touch us - or pay brolly fees which are more expensive...

What ever happened to this pre-2010 election language?

"For the past 13 years, Labour has constantly meddled with the tax rules for freelancers and self-employed," said shadow business minister Mark Prisk.

"IR35 has especially proved to over-complex, uncertain and often unfair. At a time when Britain should be open for business, Gordon Brown has made it harder to be self-employed."

Tories may scrap IR35 tax rules for contractors

I really hope this blows up spectacularly in their face and ends up costing them more - I really really do...

[Guesstimator]

Am I right in thinking that the agency legislation doesn't apply to most/all psc and so this has never needed to be implemented or tested?

"When the agency does not consider a worker is subject to (or to a right of) supervision, direction, or control by any person, then they will need to keep evidence of this (see ESM2042)."

[eek]

Am I right in thinking that the agency legislation doesn't apply to most/all psc and so this has never needed to be implemented or tested?

"When the agency does not consider a worker is subject to (or to a right of) supervision, direction, or control by any person, then they will need to keep evidence of this (see ESM2042)."

Yes but that was before the change between the discussion document (where PSCs are not mentioned) and the consultation document (where PSCs are explicitly included at the behest of some feedback from unions)...

Lisa is right to make the jump that PSCs may be included. Its better to complain even if we are not actually effected rather than leaving it and suddenly discovering we are included but its too late to do anything about it.