Decision on IR35 - when?

[cojak]

I currently work at a client site with about 50 other contractors. Id say four fifths of them either dont comprehend IR35 or think they are well outside it. One even said to me they had 'opted out of IR35'!

With such naivety, one can only be astounded at some people's view of their status.

Yep, which is why everyone reading anything on CUK hope that those contractors fall off the cliff first, as the rest of us step backwards...

[MicrosoftBob]

The tax authorities are not above giving you a negative number for the notice period of changes.

I wouldn't put it past them retrospectively changing the rules on IR35, they did it for EBTs after all

[PerfectStorm]

I currently work at a client site with about 50 other contractors. Id say four fifths of them either dont comprehend IR35 or think they are well outside it. One even said to me they had 'opted out of IR35'!

With such naivety, one can only be astounded at some people's view of their status.

Same. Of course, odds are that they won't be affected by it so you can see why.

[mudskipper]

Pub time, I'll let you know what I think after a couple of pints

As promised

IPSE were perfectly content to allow the arrogant postings and not have an "official" poster, it was quite apparent to us all that despite protestations to the contrary that there was a measure of "official" to it. The denials were never even marginally credible.
If the line wasn't official then it should have been stamped on and denounced, it never was. Certain posters have been posting exactly the same way and party line for years.

IPSE members are clever enough to know that a line spouted frequently, no matter how un-official, is viewed as official. Lack of denial is acceptance by default in that scenario, if their management struggle to grasp that basic truth then they're even more out of touch than previously believed.

I can't disagree with much of this.

But, I do think that IPSE's intentions are genuine and in the right place. I agree that that the impact of CUK has been underestimated - forum users both here and on their own forums are a tiny percentage of members/contractors, but IMO, they are also the more engaged members. I think it's fair to say that some CC members (and not just the newly elected ones) are highlighting the concerns raised here.

It has been vociferously argued (by me and others) that an 'official' IPSE voice on CUK would be useful, and there have been assurances that it is being considered, and I believe that assurance. The CC are supposed to be representative members, so, if you don't like what you've got, then you (members) need to vote for something different. I think the fact that The FaQQer got such a significant lead on the votes in the last election shows that the system does work, but it only works if people that members can identify with put themselves forward for election in the first place.

I think that IPSE have a plenty of "room for improvement" insofar as communicating with members, but that doesn't mean that everything they do/stand for is bad/wrong. Give them a chance to address the problems, and, in the meantime, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[eek]

As promised




I can't disagree with much of this.

But, I do think that IPSE's intentions are genuine and in the right place. I agree that that the impact of CUK has been underestimated - forum users both here and on their own forums are a tiny percentage of members/contractors, but IMO, they are also the more engaged members. I think it's fair to say that some CC members (and not just the newly elected ones) are highlighting the concerns raised here.

It has been vociferously argued (by me and others) that an 'official' IPSE voice on CUK would be useful, and there have been assurances that it is being considered, and I believe that assurance. The CC are supposed to be representative members, so, if you don't like what you've got, then you (members) need to vote for something different. I think the fact that The FaQQer got such a significant lead on the votes in the last election shows that the system does work, but it only works if people that members can identify with put themselves forward for election in the first place.

I think that IPSE have a plenty of "room for improvement" insofar as communicating with members, but that doesn't mean that everything they do/stand for is bad/wrong. Give them a chance to address the problems, and, in the meantime, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And to be blunt it was confirmed to me that malvolio is not iPse's spokesman and should be treated with the misrepresentation he presents

[jamesbrown]

Personally, I would be looking at April 2017 for any implementation. Remember that things that used to be set up 4 weeks in advance (income tax levels) now have a 1 year lead time..

For what it's worth, I agree with this. At this stage, it's a discussion document (if only in name). Once a position has been formed - and, make no mistake, it will almost certainly involve a combination of SDC and policing by the client, if nothing else - there will be a consultation document. The legislative vehicle is likely to be FB 2017. As a point of reference, the dividends taxation will be part of FB 2016, and I'd expect a better indication of the specifics on that in the autumn.

[TheFaQQer]

Well it's under consultation, then it will undergo change, then they may announce it 3 days before it goes live.

IR35 is under discussion - the consultation comes after that once there is a position to consult on. So I'd think that the changes will be in Finance bill 2016, into effect April 2017.

Travel and subsistence is under consultation, with a timeline of Finance bill 2015, into effect April 2016.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The discussion document is asking for written reviews by the end of September