IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[Paralytic]

It's getting rather tiresome now <snip>

It certainly is...

[WordIsBond]

It's getting rather tiresome now, but one last attempt. That's yesterday's pleading of "I run a real bizniz, I'm IR35 exempt". There's nothing here that hasn't been wheeled out a zillion times. Times have changed. Try a new argument if you can find one. "It's not fair on us poor victimised agency workers" isn't working. Sorry.

If you're going to be silly, let's just look at what was said.

Like I said before, at GSK, they just put you through the sausage machine, you turned up, did as you were told and left when they'd had enough of you.

Which BlueSharp quoted and said:

So no MOO then?

To which you responded:

They had a habit of doing the same to staff folks too as they are one of those companies that continuously reorganises to give the impression of progress. So staff regularly got the option to get a pay off and leave. What became a problem though for many at GSK was that the company share plan was so generous, many were trapped there by having so much potential capital tied up in the various share save plans

But then, contradictorily, you said:

Sorry, nobody mentioned redundancies. Red herring. Anyone who left GSK did so of their own accord on voluntary severance terms. They were generous back then. Things may have changed now.

First, you're describing voluntary redundancies above, and it was never the same for contractors, was it? Or did you take a contractor's voluntary redundancy? Anyone who contracted at GSK ever get a chance to take voluntary redundancy? Of course not.

So no, it wasn't the same. The same, you know, is the same.

So let's go back to what you've just said:

It's getting rather tiresome now, but one last attempt. That's yesterday's pleading of "I run a real bizniz, I'm IR35 exempt". There's nothing here that hasn't been wheeled out a zillion times. Times have changed. Try a new argument if you can find one. "It's not fair on us poor victimised agency workers" isn't working. Sorry.

What's been "wheeled out a zillion times" has actually been tested in case law and won more than one case.

Contractors are different from employees. Your own words demonstrate they are treated differently. If you think that doesn't make any difference, that the difference isn't enough to constitute "a business", that they should still be taxed as employees, you are permitted to have such an opinion, but you'll just have to live with the fact that other people are going to have a different opinion and are going to express it, even if you think it is tiresome. Those other people might even win the occasional case.

But contractors under IR35 are treated worse than employees. Employees get the benefit of security, smooth income, and other employment rights tax free. Contractors inside IR35 don't. They are paid the value of the security and other employment rights in cash, but are taxed on it, unlike employees. They can't smooth out their income, if they are in contract for a year and then out for a year they'll be hammered on taxes even if they earned exactly the same amount over the two years that the employee did.

Their willingness to be flexible is beneficial to business, to the public sector, to the economy, and they are taxed punitively for it. If you think they are nothing other than employees then you should at least argue they should be taxed the same, rather than worse.

Sure, there are permie-tractors who really are just employees in all but name. There's probably a lot of them. If that's all you are talking about, fine, carry on. But if you are talking about the people who get dumped without cause with no notice, that's a pretty compelling argument that the level of MOO is below that which is necessary to constitute employment.

[BR14]

If you're going to be silly, let's just look at what was said.

Which BlueSharp quoted and said:

To which you responded:

But then, contradictorily, you said:

First, you're describing voluntary redundancies above, and it was never the same for contractors, was it? Or did you take a contractor's voluntary redundancy? Anyone who contracted at GSK ever get a chance to take voluntary redundancy? Of course not.

So no, it wasn't the same. The same, you know, is the same.

So let's go back to what you've just said:

What's been "wheeled out a zillion times" has actually been tested in case law and won more than one case.

Contractors are different from employees. Your own words demonstrate they are treated differently. If you think that doesn't make any difference, that the difference isn't enough to constitute "a business", that they should still be taxed as employees, you are permitted to have such an opinion, but you'll just have to live with the fact that other people are going to have a different opinion and are going to express it, even if you think it is tiresome. Those other people might even win the occasional case.

But contractors under IR35 are treated worse than employees. Employees get the benefit of security, smooth income, and other employment rights tax free. Contractors inside IR35 don't. They are paid the value of the security and other employment rights in cash, but are taxed on it, unlike employees. They can't smooth out their income, if they are in contract for a year and then out for a year they'll be hammered on taxes even if they earned exactly the same amount over the two years that the employee did.

Their willingness to be flexible is beneficial to business, to the public sector, to the economy, and they are taxed punitively for it. If you think they are nothing other than employees then you should at least argue they should be taxed the same, rather than worse.

Sure, there are permie-tractors who really are just employees in all but name. There's probably a lot of them. If that's all you are talking about, fine, carry on. But if you are talking about the people who get dumped without cause with no notice, that's a pretty compelling argument that the level of MOO is below that which is necessary to constitute employment.

have you met John The Bike at all??

[cojak]

IPSE’s official response:

The aggressive HMRC letters to GSK contractors – IPSE explainer | IPSE

[jamesbrown]

IPSE’s official response:

The aggressive HMRC letters to GSK contractors – IPSE explainer | IPSE

Thanks, cojak. So much for them posting it themselves...

[cojak]

They were probably very busy on Friday.

Doing very important things.

[BlueSharp]

I'm hearing rumours that GSK is going to start sorting out SoW for contractors and not all contractors there have received these letters, so the plot thickens around how these individuals have been targeted.

[BrilloPad]

IPSE’s official response:

The aggressive HMRC letters to GSK contractors – IPSE explainer | IPSE

So HMRC are talking nonsense. And join IPSE now.

[helen7]

But contractors under IR35 are treated worse than employees. Employees get the benefit of security, smooth income, and other employment rights tax free. Contractors inside IR35 don't. They are paid the value of the security and other employment rights in cash, but are taxed on it, unlike employees.

Not sure what contracts you have been working on but I certainly got paid SIGNIFICANTLY more than permie equivalents. (at least double, if not triple). And to top it off, for many years I was able to pay significantly less tax by using my spouse as an employee, avoiding NI by paying dividends, having the company pay for my IT equipment and Phone.

A permie job is not especially more secure that a contract. Big companies are well versed in redundancies and pay offs to get permies out the door; and UK pension contributions by employers are terrible (3% at a lot of employers)

[cojak]

Not sure what contracts you have been working on but I certainly got paid SIGNIFICANTLY more than permie equivalents. (at least double, if not triple). And to top it off, for many years I was able to pay significantly less tax by using my spouse as an employee, avoiding NI by paying dividends, having the company pay for my IT equipment and Phone.

...and let's not forget the tax scheme that provided you with that significant extra.