BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[silver_lining]

Based on how many clients Parasol and friends have, I make it around 40k contractors either using umbrellas or "volunteering" to be IR35 caught out of cowardice or ignorance. The "take" is the difference between their PAYE/NICS and what it would be it they wre running LtdCos with a sensible (not extreme) pay/dividends ratio, and using some very generous estimates the most I can get to is £430m - a big number but actually trivial in national terms.

PCG is attacking the issue (and has been for a while) using voting numbners. Surveys show that 91% of 18.500 members will vote for the party that promises to repeal IR35 - there's one load of votes. I would guess that would extend to the non-membership world as well; given the PCG is around 10% of the whole, perhaps 250k votes are up for grabs, and roughly half of them in the South East.

That is a lot of votes and 'real' votes not potential turnout. So what is the Tories current position on IR35?

In respect of SA 58, I understand Cameron has written to JCHR and one would conclude is not in principle in agreement with the retro element.

Do we not know an influential rep from PCG to try and join forces and represent this to the Tories. Surely PCG would support the anti-retro principle?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Highly Skilled Migrant Worker Case

If anyone is interested in reading about their case, which has similarities to ours in that it involved retrospection, they have a campaign website:

http://www.hsmpforumltd.com/index.html

They got support from the JCHR against the retrospective changes, and won two JRs against the Home Office.

[malvolio]

Do we not know an influential rep from PCG to try and join forces and represent this to the Tories.

Yes, we do and he did try. . Sadly, because he insisted on being a realist, he was told to bugger off quite early in the discussion and so rather lost interest

Surely PCG would support the anti-retro principle?

Yes they do. Snag is, the general membership seem mostly uninterested, since it only affects a vanishingly small minority of them. Which is a shame, I agree, but the big problem with democracies is that you have to do what the majority want.

[poppy01]

Yes, we do and he did try. . Sadly, because he insisted on being a realist, he was told to bugger off quite early in the discussion and so rather lost interest



Yes they do. Snag is, the general membership seem mostly uninterested, since it only affects a vanishingly small minority of them. Which is a shame, I agree, but the big problem with democracies is that you have to do what the majority want.

I sincerely wish you'd lose interest and bugger off again. We're doing pretty well without your 'wisdom' thank you.

[BrilloPad]

NO MORE OFF TOPIC POSTS PLEASE

[TheBarCapBoyz]

So, who's going to win the third test this week?

[Emigre]

So, who's going to win the third test this week?

DonkeyRhubarb. Next.

[smalldog]

are public stoneings still allowed?

"who threw that, come on! she did, she did....him him him...."

I really dont want this thread diluted by a load of IR35 whinge bags...Jeez, wish that was all I had to worry about whether Im in or out of IR35...tis what dreams are made of...

[A-Nony-Mouse]

Next investigation letter...

Just received my 2007/2008 notification of investigation letter.

Forwarding to MontP - I'm guessing its that time of the year again...

Look out for more brown envelopes in the mail if you haven't received yours already.

[normalbloke]

...me too

Don't know whether anyone else had this, but before I received my closure notices (Tuesday last week), I was sent specific revised SA notices for the offending years, a few days before. However the SA 'balance sheet' that arrived with the closure notices, had different amounts than the 'actual' SA notices previously received! Par for the course it seems with HMRC..

Sent the lot off to MontP anyway.