House of Lords review & IR35, PCG

[Contreras]

It would appear that the evidence from Mark Agombar has been uncensored in the final report after all: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...esevvolume.pdf

His arguments are wholly one-sided, over-egged, and factually incorrect in parts of the detail, just as you might expect from a lawyer.

A good thing for democracy and free speech though.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It would appear that the evidence from Mark Agombar has been uncensored in the final report after all: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...esevvolume.pdf

He'll be popular with his fellow workers!

[eek]

He'll be popular with his fellow workers!

Yep paragraph 42 is really going to work.

42. A suggested solution to this, and to protect the public purse, is to amend the
Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations so as to forbid agencies
to contract with contractor limited companies where individuals on PAYE are being
placed at the same time, for the same work and with the same or similar end clients.

Here is a hint, few companies want contractors full time as they don't see the need for them...

[GB9]

It would appear that the evidence from Mark Agombar has been uncensored in the final report after all: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...esevvolume.pdf

His arguments are wholly one-sided, over-egged, and factually incorrect in parts of the detail, just as you might expect from a lawyer.

A good thing for democracy and free speech though.

I can't open it at present. Have they reinstated his naming and shaming of colleagues and their company name and address? The bloke seemed to have issues.

[GB9]

The powers that be are due to meet on 31st March. Either to issue their report, or to dream up a reason why they have missed their deadline.

[d000hg]

Nope. And how could it be done, given there is no such thing as a PSC, or at least any legal definition of one that could be used to separate them from any other Limited Company. Don't forget, Philip Green (or his wife, to be strictly accurate, since she's the sole shareholder) and Richard Branson both operate through companies that could easily be described as PSCs.

There's no clear definition of being inside IR35 either but lots of people pay as if they are. And they already ask you to declare if you're working as a PSC so they could say anyone declaring as PSC has to pay tax according to different rules, but leave it to you to make that declaration.

[malvolio]

There's no clear definition of being inside IR35 either

Actually there is, it's just very difficult to know if your particular contract meets that definition; you need a judge to decide on that.

but lots of people pay as if they are.

More fool them, says I. There is enough information out there to make a reasoned decision on your likely status. Paying taxes you don't owe is not a smart move, doing it out of ignorance or fear is plain silly.

And they already ask you to declare if you're working as a PSC so they could say anyone declaring as PSC has to pay tax according to different rules, but leave it to you to make that declaration.

No, they ask you if you have applied IR35 if you believe you are operating what they describe as a PSC. The correct answer to that question for this year is NO, unless you are operating as a PSC AND are firmly convinced that IR35 applies to your engagement.

And MyCo obeys the tax law for small companies to the letter. Until someone writes a law that says MyCo is somehow different to any other, it will continue to do so.

[Zero Liability]

The powers that be are due to meet on 31st March. Either to issue their report, or to dream up a reason why they have missed their deadline.

[jamesbrown]

Yeah, not a sausage on the Select Committee's website.

[Zero Liability]

Perhaps it's for the better.