House of Lords review & IR35, PCG

[Waldorf]

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

Are you surprised?

Public sector can never deliver to a timetable, especially when out of touch lords are involved. I would expect that they will release it on the day before Good Friday, when no-one will be interested.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Are you surprised?

Public sector can never deliver to a timetable, especially when out of touch lords are involved. I would expect that they will release it on the day before Good Friday, when no-one will be interested.

The report will be out on Monday Lords to publish Personal Service Companies report - News from Parliament - UK Parliament

[habanero]

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.

Sadly, they have not......It's such a shame that that particular version of the report has been wiped off the face of the internet with not even a cashed or historic site containing a copy and I'm somewhat surprised that no one seems (sadly) to have a copy at hand seeing that most browsers download the pdf onto the system before displaying......re his popularity, talk about persona non grata - word on the street is that he had (allegely) gone back to work for some of the entities he has named in his (now apparently censored) evidence and it would be fun to know if he is still?

Lastly and using the words of Tennessee Williams:

"The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that's also a hypocrite!"

[GB9]

BET questions to be revisited and align to law
IR35 forum members to be reviewed
HMRC to do sme work to justify their figure of £550m at threat

[jamesbrown]

Haven't read it yet...

House of Lords - Personal Service Companies - Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

Recommendations:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../160/16010.htm

[malvolio]

Haven't read it yet...

House of Lords - Personal Service Companies - Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

Recommendations:

House of Lords - Personal Service Companies - Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

...and PCG's response is here

It seems the noble Lords do have a brain, after all...

[GB9]

Haven't read it yet...

House of Lords - Personal Service Companies - Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

Recommendations:

House of Lords - Personal Service Companies - Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

May I refer you to the post above yours.

The outcome is a lot better than it could have been.

Reading between the lines it says hmrc have an unconvincing argument.

[GB9]

...and PCG's response is here

It seems the noble Lords do have a brain, after all...

Yes, pleasantly surprised when I read it.

HMRC's figures don't align to each other. The figure used for each part of their calculation appears to be from a different source.

I particularly liked the suggestion that they had been unhelpful.

[Zero Liability]

I guess Giant's intelligent remarks paid dividends.

More seriously though, this is good news. If HMRC fails to substantiate its figures, which PCG seems quite confident it won't be able to produce, it could ring the death knell for IR35. As it is, there was little evidence to suggest the Lords are of the opinion that its enforcement should be more stringent, and they seem to be in favour of harmonising NI and income tax, which will make it redundant. Maybe the Lib Dems can bring back to memory their promise to abolish IR35 now.

[jamesbrown]

I guess Giant's intelligent remarks paid dividends.

More seriously though, this is good news. If HMRC fails to substantiate its figures, which PCG seems quite confident it won't be able to produce, it could ring the death knell for IR35. As it is, there was little evidence to suggest the Lords are of the opinion that its enforcement should be more stringent, and they seem to be in favour of harmonising NI and income tax, which will make it redundant. Maybe the Lib Dems can bring back to memory their promise to abolish IR35 now.

On the whole, I agree, but I think the best one could expect from scrutiny of HMRC's claims about the deterrent effect would be for the figures and the methodology that produced them to be dismissed (as they will be), but the argument about there being a significant deterrent effect that is difficult to quantify would likely be enough for inaction, despite the onus being on HMRC to justify the deterrent effect in quantitative (cost/benefit) terms. It's appropriate that the lack of ministerial evidence was slammed by the Committee, but I think that indicates the level of apathy towards any action.