Working for minus £400 in March

[eek]

Indeed. That was part of the argument we put forward as part of the consultations I believe.

Yep and it is why there is a differentiator between limited company contractors working under IR35 (working as if they are members of staff) who are treated as on payroll and those who are not working under IR35 who can still claim expenses.

Some of us only pick battles we can win and make damn sure that we win them :

[supersteamer]

The definition of "normal commuting" has nothing to do with the distance or cost of the journey and everything to do with the nature and purpose of the travel.

Boo

I've never agreed with this. Uprooting a family and relocating 100s of miles on the back of a 3 month contract is insanity and NOT the same as taking up permanent employment elsewhere. Brolly/IR35-caught contractors are not the same as permies, and I have some sympathy with the OP.

Still, I agree that this battle is lost and time to move on into the brave new world where clients can now benefit from only being able to engage temporary workers from within a 10-mile radius....

[northernladuk]

I've never agreed with this. Uprooting a family and relocating 100s of miles on the back of a 3 month contract is insanity and NOT the same as taking up permanent employment elsewhere. Brolly/IR35-caught contractors are not the same as permies, and I have some sympathy with the OP.

Still, I agree that this battle is lost and time to move on into the brave new world where clients can now benefit from only being able to engage temporary workers from within a 10-mile radius....

But you can't claim T&S if you uproot and move to the gig....

[eek]

I've never agreed with this. Uprooting a family and relocating 100s of miles on the back of a 3 month contract is insanity and NOT the same as taking up permanent employment elsewhere. Brolly/IR35-caught contractors are not the same as permies, and I have some sympathy with the OP.

Still, I agree that this battle is lost and time to move on into the brave new world where clients can now benefit from only being able to engage temporary workers from within a 10-mile radius....

HMRC's believe is that umbrella companies are merely used to pay agency and other temporary staff that companies wish to keep off payroll to avoid employee benefits and reduce costs. They alongside virtually every union argued that umbrellas were using expenses to both reduce costs (expenses don't require employers NI) and reduce the tax temporary employees pay as some journeys (the first and last every day) could be expensed that otherwise wouldn't be.

Personally I utterly dislike the argument but it's not one you are going to win. Remember every ir35 example HMRC use is people being paid the same as permanent employees ignoring employers NI, pension payments and holidays. Even though HMRC is by far the best paying clientco for contractors in the north east.

[northernladuk]

But don't you think they could have an argument for 1st, 2nd and some 3rd line type roles. Enduring and not project related.

[eek]

But don't you think they could have an argument for 1st, 2nd and some 3rd line type roles. Enduring and not project related.

Yep they do have a point which was why Lisa's suggestion of using 3-4 times national minimum wage was a better suggestion than the current system. As was James suggestion of separating out work into business as usual and project related work (which falls down when you try and find a test that catches project work accurately).

It's also one big issue I have with IPSE in that because they cannot, and could not sacrifice some members (business as usual support monkeys say) when needs must to protect the majority they may end up protecting no one.

[northernladuk]

I didn't know that about IPSE but that was probably my fault for not following it closely enough. Am disappointed to hear that but it's to be expected I guess. Many people I've spoken to have mentioned that they feel you can't defend everyone just because they are a member. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if they put that to the vote.

That said I'm sure HMRC would completely mess up the criteria for a temp and a contractor meaning it would be no help at all.

[LondonManc]

It all boils down to HMRC not understanding how the IT contracting sector works. Then again, a lot of clients simply don't use contractors properly so it's not a big surprise that HMRC get it wrong.

Should there be a simple sign-off form on a contract by contract basis?
1/ Project-based work
2/ Specialist work with no long term requirement
3/ Short-term resource shortage (max 6 month engagement)
4/ Other (these fall inside IR35 and should be billed as such so that NIC/full PAYE are achieved)

On reflection that would probably be open to abuse and agents would guide clients to make sure that they can fit the role into 1, 2 or 3. Meh, you can see why it's such a mess when you start thinking of different ways of doing it.

4 times minimum wage? Currently £6.70, so an hourly rate of £26.8 (or £187.6 for 7, £201 for 7.5 or £214.40 for 8 hours). Given I've been contacted about SQL Server dev rates in Manchester (because I've got SQL Server as part of my skill set) at £210, then it's borderline when it shouldn't be.

[tim123]

Given I've been contacted about SQL Server dev rates in Manchester (because I've got SQL Server as part of my skill set) at £210, then it's borderline when it shouldn't be.

and I thought the £32/h that is commonly offered for embedded work outside of the "silicon valley" hotspots was bad

FWIW that's the same rate as I was being offered in 96.

tim

[LondonManc]

and I thought the £32/h that is commonly offered for embedded work outside of the "silicon valley" hotspots was bad

FWIW that's the same rate as I was being offered in 96.

tim

It was public sector noddy SQL stuff and if I was early 60s and on a wind down, it might have been something I'd taken on. It's gigs like this that make chunts with less than two years on the clock think that they can make it as a contractor.