Confused!

[ASB]

My agency's concern is that, using SJD as an example, although I might genuinely be in business SJD may have other clients who are not. If you are deemed by HMRC to be a MSC Provider in the future then I will be classed as an MSC because I use your services.

That with the transfer of debts provisions is the problem. I do not believe that anybody who is operatiing a "regular" limited company using accountants in a "normal" manner will be in any way caught by the provisions.

But, the 64,000 dollar question becomes will an agency take the risk? I don't know how it will pan out. A possible result is that all contractors may effectively need to move to paye (rather like Gordon intended with IR35 of course).

He knows he cannot introduce specifically targetted legislation, but he also knows a climate of fear and uncertainly may achieve close to the same aim.

The fact that a "regular" company is "legal" won't help anyone if agencies are too scared of the risk. Exactly the same scenario as being self employed.

[THEPUMA]

Check with the PCG Joel, you'll find all our offices are accredited by the PCG.

Unlike your Company.

I am not sure why you are addressing this to me Simon. The original quote was from Beerbarrel.

And we are accredited by the PCG.

[Nixon Williams]

Simon, I am merely a disillusioned contractor; quite clearly the major accounting firms advising Giant disagree with you. Giant had nothing to gain in leaving us all in the lurch, so they must have believed the advice they were given?

SJD, NW, 360, Brooksons & JSA are all on their list of probable MSCs and we have been advised to avoid you.

The product Giant were offering was very different from what we, SJD etc offer to our clients. As a large MSC provider, they planned to have control of the bank account, actioning payments, raising invoices, providing insurance etc. None of which we offer and neither have we ever offered a MSC service (or umbrella come to that).

Giant were slow to respond to the proposed changes and when they did devise something it clearly failed to comply with the new measures. They have everything to gain from pushing people into their umbrella, as Simon has said they are easier to administer and more profitable.

As for advised to avoid us, by whom? - Giant?

Alan

[THEPUMA]

As for advised to avoid us, by whom? - Giant?

I think this refers to the Lawspeed seminar that they held for agencies in conjunction with HMRC. Apparently, they told agencies that pretty much all accountants were caught. Obviously, HMRC concurred with this view. And now the agencies who attended are spreading this to their candidates.

But they have then taken a completely different stance when speaking to accountants.

I believe James May posts on here so maybe he could clarify their stance.

[AnotherIan]

Ack, just lost my post and citations, so I'll summarise without the justifications.

1) This legislation is aimed at contractors, it does so by targetting MSCs.
2) An MSC is not clearly defined. I can probably make a case that my web hosting company is an MSC. I could use services where my Googlerank is monitored and tweaked with payment made based on success. However, I could equally argue the opposite and that's just using the tests listed.
3) Apparently brought in because of Eastern European contractors. I thought there were only 13,000 of them, but apparently one or two more popped over.
4) JSD/NW, etc are exempt from this.
5) Operating as a Ltd using JSD and co means you operate as you did prior to April under the same conditions, i.e. IR35 compliance is still an issue but there are no new rules. In saying that, see point 2, there may be practical considerations.