IR35 change announced

[malvolio]

As I said I'm not inside IR35 so the details what I'd have to pay aren't something I need to know, any more than any other area of irrelevant tax law

That's today. Tomorrow it may change. Stikcing your fingers in your ears is not a good strategy. And you did ask the question..

So "leveling how employees and contractors'/PSCs' income is treated" is not even slightly true.

Yes it is, there is an anomlay between IR35 and ITEPA which this change will remove.

Doubtful. Isn't the whole point that HMRC are saying a client 'officer' should by definition be an employee?

No, not at all. Ever hear of interim managers? Or workers from external consultancies such as Ernst and Young taking a Board position with their client?

[saptastic]

So overall all of this essentially is down to Ed Lester being outed? Also why is all HMRC wording so ambiguous? (I know... I haven't just realised this).

[Precept]

So overall all of this essentially is down to Ed Lester being outed? Also why is all HMRC wording so ambiguous? (I know... I haven't just realised this).

You might be interested in this piece from Lawspeed yesterday:
Lawspeed News | Latest News > Finance Bill could spell the end of IR35

[CR9999]

You might be interested in this piece from Lawspeed yesterday:
Lawspeed News | Latest News > Finance Bill could spell the end of IR35

Also in the news item on Contractor UK today:

The draft legislation, which follows Autumn Statement 2012, does indeed serve to strengthen IR35 – as the Treasury vowed to do in the AS, in that it reinforces the principle that someone who is ‘part and parcel’ of a business will be deemed to be ‘inside’ the legislation. In particular, the focus is on ‘office holders,’ such as senior post-holders including anyone who manages a team or plays a key financial role in an organisation.

Anyone with a management role is now likely to be caught. Looks like I'll have to sharpen up those old C++ skills from 10 years ago !!!

[Ticktock]

You might be interested in this piece from Lawspeed yesterday:
Lawspeed News | Latest News > Finance Bill could spell the end of IR35

Marlowe concluded “The new proposed rules are so wide that even contractors who work in non management positions other than for a clear limited purpose would be caught.

To me this just says that disguised employees would be caught. If you're really a contractor, being brought in to complete work on a specific project then that means that you are working "for a clear limited purpose".

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I think what is important here is what HMR&C term as an office holder:

" substantive position which had an existence independent from the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders." and the case law they rely on to support the definition:

"An office in this context is, in my opinion, a post which can be recognised as existing, whether it be occupied for the time being or vacant, and which, if occupied, does not owe its existence in any way to the identity of the incumbent or his appointment to the post. It follows, I think, that the office must owe its existence to some constituent instrument, whether it be a charter, statute, declaration of trust, contract (other than a contract of personal service) or instrument of some other kind. It also follows, in my view, that the office must have a sufficient degree of continuity to admit of its being held by successive incumbents: it need not be capable of permanent or prolonged or indefinite existence, but it cannot be limited to the tenure of one man, for if it were so it would lack that independent existence which to my mind the word “office” imports. It may be that it should in some degree possess a public character, but it is not necessary to decide that point in this case, for the taxpayer’s functions in respect of which fees were received undoubtedly had such a character.’

This would lead me to think that any post which exists or has existed within the company that is then filled by a contractor will put said contractor automatically inside IR35

[VectraMan]

This would lead me to think that any post which exists or has existed within the company that is then filled by a contractor will put said contractor automatically inside IR35

Which suggests that if you a) replace a permie who's left, or b) are replaced by a permie when you leave, then that rule would apply. And you wouldn't necessarily know about either of those things. The only way to be safe is if you work on a project that you start, only you work on, and no more work is done on after you've finished. And that's not the way the world works.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Which suggests that if you a) replace a permie who's left, or b) are replaced by a permie when you leave, then that rule would apply. And you wouldn't necessarily know about either of those things. The only way to be safe is if you work on a project that you start, only you work on, and no more work is done on after you've finished. And that's not the way the world works.

Yep pretty much - seems that only project work will guarantee your safety

[northernladuk]

This would lead me to think that any post which exists or has existed within the company that is then filled by a contractor will put said contractor automatically inside IR35

Which would be an enduring role which I think we all should be wary of as is it could be a bit of an issue with IR35 except where it is filling in for say maternity leave

[thebear14]

Which would be an enduring role which I think we all should be wary of as is it could be a bit of an issue with IR35 except where it is filling in for say maternity leave

What about as backfill for an SME seconded to work on a project?