Giant pull their Trailblazer service

[Bigbird]

He doesn't need to PAG.

If you are "managed" by a "sceme provider" you fall within the new rules and pay employed tax by default. So all they have to do is decide which outfits are "scheme providers" rather than "accountancy service providers" and target them. Every single contractor signed up to them is automatically made to pay. No exceptions.

For those who are PSC and using a genuine accountancy service such as NW or SJD there is still the IR35 issue to be dealt with so HMRC will have much more time and resources to devote to individual investigations and status enquiries.

I'm surprised it's only Giant of the "biggies" that seem to have actually cottoned on so far - I've been saying this ad nauseum since the draft document came out last year.........

[maxima]

Not sure if anyone of you have noticed or not, the "Budget Update" (as given by Giant) in some sentences is not clear if HMRC is going to target PSC service providers or PSC itself

That is exactly why I am here. I have received the email few minutes ago and now am very confused.

All this bulltulip about Giant pulling something.. Such a stuff just expose how many of us are not very bright. Giant will take a lot from trailblazer if they could. They lost most profitable business by now (MSC) and now they are rolling back the only business they have and refunding money.

Only a dork can think that is a hoax.

Onyone with real ideas what is going on ? Please?

[maxima]

Is PSC not the same as own ltd ?

[boredsenseless]

Is PSC not the same as own ltd ?

A PSC is the same as own ltd...

However it is not necessarily true that a limited company wholly owned by yourself and in the business of providing IT consultancy services is a PSC.

Malvolio was trying to show that the cast iron test of initiatives like IR35 and their ilk is if you believe you are like them. If you believe you are a PSC then you are almost certainly falling foul of IR35. The key is in the real name "The Intermediaries and Personal Services Company Settlements"

[boredsenseless]

Also who else thinks its a strange name as I've never provide PERSONAL services to any client, only consulting and business services.

I've met a few self-employed on street corners that are PSC's though

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

To clarify the situation: Nothing has really changed since the pre-budget announcement - you will have the choice to set up your own limited company (over which you have financial and administrative control) and, if you are outside IR35 you can draw dividends from that company; if you are inside IR35 or you use the services of any third party to process your invoices you will be obliged to receive payment through PAYE.

I would suspect that Giant were waiting for final confirmation from the budget that HMR&C had closed all the loopholes before putting out a public announcement. The content of their announcement is no different from that put out by all MSC's in December last year. The confusion has been caused by the use of the term 'PSC' instead of Limited Company.

[THEPUMA]

I mentioned this as soon as the legislation was published. I think it should be a concern to all of us.

I don't think the legislation was targetted at normal PSC's (sorry Malvolio) but the fact is that the legislation is ambiguous and one interpretation of it is that they are caught (unless they do not have an accountant).

If Giant could have simply migrated their MSC's to PSC's I'm sure they would have done, in preference to giving up a huge amount of business.

So it comes back to my original question which is how to define an accountant.

And it may be that it is one regulated by a recognised authority.

[simondolan]

Decent of Giant to withdraw their scheme as it would have undoubtedly be caught, but total nonsense to claim that all contractors will be caught.

They would have been caught under the Giant scheme because Giant were still retaining too much control over their "scheme members". What they were doing was an MSC in all but name.

I wonder if they would have pulled the scheme if it wasn't for the fact that they could have been caught for the debts under the debt transfer legislation.

[malvolio]

Yes, interesting that we now not only have to prove that we are businesses but our own retained advisors now have to prove they are as well. And this is Brown simplyfying the adminstrative burden for small companies?

I have always been against the idea of being licensed as a self employed person, regardless of vehicle (another consequence of S134c, of course, so that most of us can't be SE in the accepted sense) but I'm beginning to beleive it is the only way forward. That, or a chancellor that actually understand economics and capitalism...

[maxima]

That is the problem Malvolio. Chancellor understands economics and capitalism perfectly.

Why cant you see that? Because you are looking in wrong direction.

Chancellor (and whole Labour party) is implementing socialist economy for last 10 years (and socialist relations in the society).

This is why you cant find the black cat in black room - cat has gone.