Originally posted by jamesbrown
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Legal action / Mislead contract was outside IR35
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
All those solutions require a sensible debate and HMRC know that that is never going to occur....merely at clientco for the entertainment -
No I don't get your point - as I don't think you did anything to confirm what the agent said was correct.,Originally posted by cyborg1337 View PostI feel like you get my point; but won't admit. No hard feelings.
I'm prepared to own and pay for my mistakes, it just bothers me that companies get away so easily (well let's see what happens).
Let me repeat my first question:-
Did you get an outside professional (say QDOS) to check that your contract was actually outside IR35 or did you just take the agency's word for it. I won't even ask about my second working conditions part.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Right, the UK is thick-as-mince in this area of policy, as in some others. Our civil service just doesn't understand the sunk cost fallacy and prefers to double down on thick-as-mince because it is politically easy.Originally posted by eek View PostAll those solutions require a sensible debate and HMRC know that that is never going to occur....Comment
-
There isn't actually that many times when you can start to implement the fundamental changes that are required. It requires a new Government with a large majority for it to occur otherwise point scoring for votes would win..Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostRight, the UK is thick-as-mince in this area of policy, as in some others. Our civil service just doesn't understand the sunk cost fallacy and prefer to double down on thick-as-mince.
This is the first time since 2005 when such a Government has existed - and sadly I think there are more pressing issues...merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Yes not just the agencies word; I used QDOS to confirm it was outside.Originally posted by eek View PostNo I don't get your point - as I don't think you did anything to confirm what the agent said was correct.,
Let me repeat my first question:-
Did you get an outside professional (say QDOS) to check that your contract was actually outside IR35 or did you just take the agency's word for it. I won't even ask about my second working conditions part.Comment
-
There are degrees of change. Addressing the imbalances between employment and tax law is a fundamental change that would require a massive majority and a gov't focused on that (if that's what you mean, I agree). Pushing through something akin to look-through for close company directors is a tax change and comparatively easy. There are ways to increase taxes on close company directors that don't look anything like IR35 (and are much better, more equitable), even if they are papering over the employment law/tax law imbalance.Originally posted by eek View PostThere isn't actually that many times when you can start to implement the fundamental changes that are required. It requires a new Government with a large majority for it to occur.
And this is the first time since 2005 when such a Government has existed - sadly I think there are more pressing issues...Comment
-
I'm not sure that's an option - it's one thing to attack a company that has zero capital and is really a labour enterprise (as contracting is) and another to use the same rules for a close company like my new one (£150,000 capital ignoring 9 months of my time (completely unpaid) which would otherwise have been another £120,000).Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostThere are degrees of change. Addressing the imbalances between employment and tax law is a fundamental change that would require a massive majority and a gov't focused on that (if that's what you mean, I agree). Pushing through something akin to look-through for close company directors is a tax change and comparatively easy. There are ways to increase taxes on close company directors that don't look anything like IR35 (and are much better, more equitable), even if they are papering over the employment law/tax law imbalance.
One deserves very different rules to the other yet both are close companies.Last edited by eek; 23 February 2020, 16:39.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
In which case you would know the importance of your working practices and you failed to follow QDOS's advice...Originally posted by cyborg1337 View PostYes not just the agencies word; I used QDOS to confirm it was outside.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Politically? Politically, the easiest thing to do is something that has limited scope and is simple, such as increased dividend taxation (focused to avoid pensioners). Beyond that, everything else is a degree of hard. My overall point is that this is neither a new problem nor a problem unique to the UK, and the UK seems to have chosen the most clown shoe legislation possible. FWIW, the OTS did a comprehensive review of look-through from a simplification POV a few years ago, and they didn't particularly like it (but saw some benefits in terms of fairer taxation of labour supplies, as well as some downsides).Originally posted by eek View PostI'm not sure that's an option - it's one thing to attack a company that has zero capital and is really a labour enterprise (as contracting is) and another to use the same rules for a close company like my new one (£150,000 capital ignoring 9 months of my time (completely unpaid) which would otherwise have been another £120,000).
One deserves very different rules to the other yet both are close companies.Comment
-
Like I said; Immediately there wasn't a problem. Gradually later in the year, as things progressed, people changed, things got tricky.Originally posted by eek View PostIn which case you would know the importance of your working practices and you failed to follow QDOS's advice...
On the most part I operated as outside IR35, which in the end resulted in my contract being ended.
And they are getting away it. Also they really need to train up their incompetent staff on dealing with outside IR35 contractors.Comment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

). However, IR35 has always been a thick-as-mince UK solution to an international problem with much better solutions. It's been central to a whole host of disasters in recent years, such as tax avoidance schemes/loan charge, legislative uncertainty, permietractoring as a viable thing etc. We either need strict deeming criteria, which is the standard approach in most other jurisdictions, or we need to align taxes on earned and unearned income, at least for close company owner directors (aka "look through"). This is all blindingly obvious.
Comment