IR35buddy

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

I didn't fight a thing I had investigation insurance. Any contractor who doesn't deserves all they get !

I wish I could quote that on my website

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

Ultimately though, if HMRC were to resort to that sort of tactic and the agencies picked up on it, could they not prep their clients on how to handle them? Whether or not they have the incentive to is a different question.

Agree. What's their incentive - whether contractor is limited, PAYE or umbrella their margin is the same.

Voting with feet would make a difference, but if MegaBank make MegaAgency it's sole provider, in a tight market, then people are stuffed.

[TestMangler]

I wish I could quote that on my website

For a suitable fee, you can !

[Zero Liability]

Agree. What's their incentive - whether contractor is limited, PAYE or umbrella their margin is the same.

Voting with feet would make a difference, but if MegaBank make MegaAgency it's sole provider, in a tight market, then people are stuffed.

I guess the only situation in which they would is if they were of the impression that they may end up stuck with the bill for it but at present that isn't the case. Another could be clients perplexed by being part of this sort of investigation. Would they not pass on such concerns to the agency in the first instance?

[v8gaz]

I suspect the answer is not safe at all, be it PCG or commercial bodies.

HMRC have certain rights under TMA 1970 et seq to request returns of this and that, eg letting agents of landlord payments, pubs and clubs of entertainers, ISTR there are one or two for agencies as well.

HMRC do NOT have the right to look at PCGs member database, and even if they decided they did, I have a feeling that the Db resides on a very shaky old server that hasn't been backed up, ever. It would be a terrible shame if that disk crashed just as the data was requested...

[Contreras]

Anyone that believes with certainty that HMRC could never get at PCG's membership list in whole or in part must be quite deluded. HMRC have 'form' regarding use of leaked/stolen data. Evidence given to the HoL review should also remind us how eager some people are to cause trouble for their 'tax-cheating' contractor colleagues. And of course the PCG management would never do anything so silly as to deliberately publish past and present member's real names on their internal forum profiles without giving prior notice or the chance to opt out, now would they?

That said, I'm not sure what HMRC would do with the data except to use it to filter out those with investigation insurance and go for lower hanging fruit instead.

[Zero Liability]

That's my reasoning too, if they were to identify someone with insurance from a firm like Qdos or Accountax, or cover from PCG (plus or otherwise), if anything it means they will have to work that much harder and spend that much more money pursuing their case.

[mudskipper]

HMRC do NOT have the right to look at PCGs member database, and even if they decided they did, I have a feeling that the Db resides on a very shaky old server that hasn't been backed up, ever. It would be a terrible shame if that disk crashed just as the data was requested...

There's a post on the PCG forum (from yesterday)

I discovered, to my surprise, that the old PCG Member Directory is publically accessible and available here: ...

The response is that the link was removed (and I get a 403 if I click the link provided), but it does rather indicate that perhaps you're a little overconfident in your claims.

[v8gaz]

There's a post on the PCG forum (from yesterday)



The response is that the link was removed (and I get a 403 if I click the link provided), but it does rather indicate that perhaps you're a little overconfident in your claims.

That was a public directory, which contained information that the poster WANTED to be made public when they set up their OWN directory entry. Slightly different from publishing the entire membership database.

[mudskipper]

That was a public directory, which contained information that the poster WANTED to be made public when they set up their OWN directory entry. Slightly different from publishing the entire membership database.

Ah, ok - makes sense! I misunderstood the post.