The great IR35 swindlle

[malvolio]

I'd like to see that in writing Mal - have asked PCG but haven't had a response yet

You could start here - https://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php...ews&Itemid=995.

As far asI know, BIS haven't argued with the PCG/REC position.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You could start here - https://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php...ews&Itemid=995.

As far asI know, BIS haven't argued with the PCG/REC position.

As far as I know BIS haven't argued with anybody's position yet - but that's not quite the same thing as "BIS have made it very clear to PCG that they consider most freelance contactors to fall into that category"

[malvolio]

As far as I know BIS haven't argued with anybody's position yet - but that's not quite the same thing as "BIS have made it very clear to PCG that they consider most freelance contactors to fall into that category"

There may or may not have been a conversation between the rule writers and certain representative bodies over the intention of the rules themselves and which bodies the writers consider as being in or out of scope. I could not possibly comment on whether or not any such conversation did take place...

HTH

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

There may or may not have been a conversation between the rule writers and certain representative bodies over the intention of the rules themselves and which bodies the writers consider as being in or out of scope. I could not possibly comment on whether or not any such conversation did take place...

HTH

Had you thought of entering the world of politics Mal - you'd fit right in Either that or the diplomatic corps perhaps?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Just as a matter of interest I emailed BIS to see if I could get clarification with the question:

"it is my understanding that if an individual has secured a contract through an agency (so there is a tri-partite contract arrangement) and they will be working under the supervision and direction of the Hirer then they will definitely fall within scope of the AWR – would you please be able to confirm?"

The answer I was given "You have to look at each case on its own merits but yes, that will generally be the case".

Read into that what you will but I don't think from that that the BIS would view the 'vast majority' of Ltd Co contractors as being outside the scope - yet again seems to be aligned with IR35

[richy]

I just paid £360 for IR35 insurance. Although I do operate outside IR35, have my contracts checked and behave in a manner which would shouldn't put me at risk - work from home, supply own equipment etc.. its just nice to know I have that additional cover.

Sounds like maybe not needed then if you are safe, IMHO, 360 could have been better spent. The biz in receipt of that 360 may well spend some of it on marketing propaganda/fear to ensnare more unsuspecting contractors!

[SueEllen]

Just as a matter of interest I emailed BIS to see if I could get clarification with the question:

"it is my understanding that if an individual has secured a contract through an agency (so there is a tri-partite contract arrangement) and they will be working under the supervision and direction of the Hirer then they will definitely fall within scope of the AWR – would you please be able to confirm?"

The answer I was given "You have to look at each case on its own merits but yes, that will generally be the case".

Read into that what you will but I don't think from that that the BIS would view the 'vast majority' of Ltd Co contractors as being outside the scope - yet again seems to be aligned with IR35

So it comes down to the "direction and control" test again.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So it comes down to the "direction and control" test again.

Yep which means that the legislation has been aligned with IR35 - if you are the cynical sort...........................

[Epiphone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If agencies and clients would engage with self-employed rather than a ltd (ie remove the legislation that says tax liabilities can be passed to the agent etc) then 99% of contractors wouldn't incorporate.

[malvolio]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If agencies and clients would engage with self-employed rather than a ltd (ie remove the legislation that says tax liabilities can be passed to the agent etc) then 99% of contractors wouldn't incorporate.

That's S134c aka S44-47 ITEPA 2003 and they would need to make the worker liable for his tax rather than the next man up the chain. .

Nor would they if we were paying them rather than the end client... Now there's a thought...