Originally posted by BoredBloke
View Post
-
It was pulled. If you search google it did come up as a link but it was a bit of work to find it....merely at clientco for the entertainment -
redacted version
It is here: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/l...esevvolume.pdfOriginally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostNot you being thick - it's gone
Makes you wonder if that was meant for public scrutiny
Graham Boyd is still there, but Mark's submission has been edited out.Comment
-
I don't think they read the document before it was published. A bit of the evidence was probably libel and some was just insane.....Originally posted by LisaContractorUmbrella View PostNot you being thick - it's gone Makes you wonder if that was meant for public scrutiny
I'm sure the sanitised version will be published in the near future....merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Wow, just read Giant's comments. Why not just say "Giant, on behalf of HMRC"?
Comment
-
And am surprised G4S managed to get a submission in without losing it or it being a year too late.Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostWow, just read Giant's comments. Why not just say "Giant, on behalf of HMRC"?'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
It was updated on Tuesday night (from memory) and I have a copy on my phone that is 247 pages long. THey added some oral evidence from the hearings. Then it went.Originally posted by eek View Post
The dubious part was also removed in the second release.Originally posted by eek View Post
Giant, who admitted their business was going downhill.Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostWow, just read Giant's comments. Why not just say "Giant, on behalf of HMRC"?Comment
-
I'll need to stock up on the Kleenex.Originally posted by GB9 View Post
Regardless, I'll mull over it this weekend to see what is being said on behalf of our side of the ring. In the end, it depends on how much of an understanding the Lords come away with and what the actual intentions are. My hope is that they'll discount blatantly self-interested whining like Giant's in assessing IR35's impact on contractors and the freelancer market, and the benefits this market provides to the wider economy. If anything, it should highlight the problems with the NI system. It could just be window-dressing to rake in more tax, however.Last edited by Zero Liability; 9 January 2014, 20:16.Comment
-
Comment
-
Latest oral evidence from business and public sector indicates they are not concerned by the use of PSCs as a mechanism for delivery per se.
A couple have an issue with paying contract rates but I assume that is more to do with impact on profit
Slight concern that many questions appear to be searching for the evidence certain comittee members would like to find.Comment
Comment