What to do if you are currently with a Composite or Managed Company.

[Newby]

Its a shame that your spelling isn't "compliant", unless your job really is Serice Delivery and not Service Delivery. No wonder you still think that parasol "employees" will still be able to claim subsistence and travel expenses when no other employee can!

Lesley Sweetman
"Serice" Delivery & Compliance Manager

[Parasol_Service]

Its a shame that your spelling isn't "compliant", unless your job really is Serice Delivery and not Service Delivery. No wonder you still think that parasol "employees" will still be able to claim subsistence and travel expenses when no other employee can!

Lesley Sweetman
"Service" Delivery & Compliance Manager

Newby - thanks for the comments.

The draft legislation has purposefully excluded the detail in relation to expenses. HMRC will (and are) be struggling to make the definition stick with the expense issue. Not allowing someone to claim expenses could be construed as restraint of trade and whilst we welcome a level playing field, does anyone really think that P4 and others will simply stop allowing them come Apr 07? I should add that our principle regarding expenses is not based on a similar strategy e.g. ignoring it.

Simon, no axe to grind with ContractorUmbrella - let us see what April 07 brings.

[Xtrain]

Am I correct in saying that Parasol do allow travel to work and subsistence claims whilst ContractorUmbrella don't. Is that the difference?

In my eyes there is absolutely no difference between P4 and the Parasol's of this world as they have all allowed travel to work and subsistence whilst it is plainly obvious that the place of work is not temporary. e.g. if you contract via a brolly you don't work at home, you don't work at the brolly HQ so therefore you work at your permanent workplace (the client site). If you then travel to other client sites for work purposes then you can claim that but otherwise you can't. With a PSC your workplace is your home so you can claim it. Seems simple to me but obviously it is in the brolly's interest to make you think otherwise.

[Xtrain]

The draft legislation has purposefully exlcuded the detail in realtion to expenses. HMRC will (and are) be stuggling to make the definition stick with the expense issue. Not allowing someone to claim expenses could be construed as restraint of trade and whilst we welcome a level playing field, does anyone really think that P4 and others will simply stop allowing them come Apr 07? I should add that our principle regarding expenses is not based on a similar strategy e.g. ignoring it.

If the detail has been excluded how do you know they are struggling to make the definition stick and how do you know what can and can't be claimed?

So, can you therefore confirm whether Parasol employees can or can't claim travel to work expenses and subsistence from April 07 onwards. Yes or no would suffice!

[peanuts]

Revenue says legislation will not affect umbrellas

I recently sent a consultation email to the revenue regarding the proposed legislation complaining that all that will happen is that contractors will leave umbrellas and open a Ltd company in order to continue to claim expenses under the 24 month rule surprisingly I got the following reply:

' Thank you for your message. We do not believe that umbrella companies are caught by the draft legislation in the consultation document. Our intention is only to capture Managed Service Companies, by which we mean Composites and Managed Personal Service Companies, with the measures described in the document. However, if you do think that business structures other than MSCs are caught by the definition we would be very interested to hear the details. '

[Newby]

It is just too much to take

Someone once told me to learn from my mistakes... maybe that should be your new years resolution!!!!

"The draft legislation has purposefully exlcuded the detail in realtion to expenses. HMRC will (and are) be stuggling to make the definition stick with the expense issue"

lets hope no one misspells your company name parasol.... parasite!!!!!

I do however appreciate your brave stance, and after a £25 million pound management buyout a few months ago, it has to be a brave stance. The statement from the revenue is absolutely clear, you are doomed!!

Just go limited, you know it makes sense

Merry Christmas

Newby

[Parasol_Service]

If the detail has been excluded how do you know they are struggling to make the definition stick and how do you know what can and can't be claimed?

So, can you therefore confirm whether Parasol employees can or can't claim travel to work expenses and subsistence from April 07 onwards. Yes or no would suffice!

Yes

[Parasol_Service]

Am I correct in saying that Parasol do allow travel to work and subsistence claims whilst ContractorUmbrella don't. Is that the difference?

In my eyes there is absolutely no difference between P4 and the Parasol's of this world as they have all allowed travel to work and subsistence whilst it is plainly obvious that the place of work is not temporary. e.g. if you contract via a brolly you don't work at home, you don't work at the brolly HQ so therefore you work at your permanent workplace (the client site). If you then travel to other client sites for work purposes then you can claim that but otherwise you can't. With a PSC your workplace is your home so you can claim it. Seems simple to me but obviously it is in the brolly's interest to make you think otherwise.

ContractorUmbrella and Parasol have always operated very ethical expense policies. I believe SJD for instance are seemingly saying that come April 07 their own ContractorUmbrella will not be allowing expense claims based on the draft legislation. They are therefore keen to promote a switch to Ltd and that is fine, we are simply offering a considered alternative.

We (Parasol) on the other hand are saying we will be able to allow genuine business expenses. We (and ContractorUmbrella) have never sold our service based on "no receipts" needed and "claim what you like".

Our view is not based on simple hoping, Parasol has a specific business model that beneath the bonnet is quite different to other PAYE operators.

Happy Christmas!

[Parasol_Service]

I do however appreciate your brave stance, and after a £25 million pound management buyout a few months ago, it has to be a brave stance. The statement from the revenue is absolutely clear, you are doomed!!

Just go limited, you know it makes sense

Merry Christmas

Newby

That is your opinion Newby and you are entitled to it. Our opinion is different of course and based on solid evidence and detailed understanding. An MBO would not have been completed if we did not have a heads up on what was coming around the corner. We don't operate at local HMRC level and whilst Ltd company is a good option for many, there are plenty of people who like the hassle free and inclusive approach we provide. That's at the basic level but we believe no one else offers nor provides the range of support, benefits and development that Parasol does to contractors. Of course tax and net return are important but there are many people who equally enjoy professional employment benefits.


Each to his/her own.

[tim123]

ContractorUmbrella and Parasol have always operated very ethical expense policies. I believe SJD for instance are seemingly saying that come April 07 their own ContractorUmbrella will not be allowing expense claims based on the draft legislation. They are therefore keen to promote a switch to Ltd and that is fine, we are simply offering a considered alternative.

We (Parasol) on the other hand are saying we will be able to allow genuine business expenses. We (and ContractorUmbrella) have never sold our service based on "no receipts" needed and "claim what you like".

Our view is not based on simple hoping, Parasol has a specific business model that beneath the bonnet is quite different to other PAYE operators.

Happy Christmas!

I think that this is wishful thinking.

Happy New year.

tim