You can now almost Smell the end of IR35 - New announcement!

[swamp]

There is more here.

One phrase struck me:

be broadly revenue neutral overall

[malvolio]

There is more here.

One phrase struck me:

be broadly revenue neutral overall

Do you not think it interesting that over 50% of the ToRs for the OTS are explicitly concerned with IR35? Do you realise that 90% of the wording is as per PCG's submissions? So can we stop trying to find faults where none exist; plenty of toime for that when the first draft report is published later this year.

[Fred Bloggs]

Rubbish - read the quote, not the interpretation of it. He is clearly talking about applying a pareto approach to the work of the OTS, not how to replace IR35. The Aussie rules didn't work in Oz and will not be implemented in the UK.

That's odd. My Australian colleagues tell me that the 80% revenue rule has effectively ended contracting as we know it down under. And anyway, the corporation tax rate is ~the same as income tax anyway, so no benefit of working under a corporate structure down under any more.

[Lumiere]

That's odd. My Australian colleagues tell me that the 80% revenue rule has effectively ended contracting as we know it down under. And anyway, the corporation tax rate is ~the same as income tax anyway, so no benefit of working under a corporate structure down under any more.

"A personal services company cannot derive more than 80% of your earnings in one tax year from one END CLIENT (regardless of the agencies involved)"

6 month contracts ?

[Fred Bloggs]

I agree, but not always possible to pull it off is it?

[Billy Pilgrim]

If IR35 does bite the dust then I'd expect we'll be paying more taxes.

Does anyone expect that once it goes then investigations into recent financial years will go with it too - i.e. no more IR35 investigations ????

[centurian]

"A personal services company cannot derive more than 80% of your earnings in one tax year from one END CLIENT (regardless of the agencies involved)"

6 month contracts ?

Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Doesn't it just push us to shorter contracts. Of course, if you only have one 6 month contract - and are benched for the next 6 months, you're caught.

I may draw the ire of the crowd here, but I think it's the best definition I've seen so far that draws a fairly definitive line between self-employment and disguised employment.

Or more to the point, I can't think of a better definition that gives a clear distinction, which is what we have all been demanding. The whole problem with IR35 is that it is so subjective, allowing both sides to argue the toss about virtually every point.

I just can't see any non numerical guidelines that will be any clearer than what we have at the moment.

[centurian]

If IR35 does bite the dust then I'd expect we'll be paying more taxes.

Does anyone expect that once it goes then investigations into recent financial years will go with it too - i.e. no more IR35 investigations ????

In theory, HMRC could investage contracts up until April 2011 (when we assume the new rules will come into force), under the existing IR35 guidelines - and can do so for a further 6 years.

However, I'd be surprised if they did. It would require a lot of effort on their part to take it to court - and there's no point in proving precedent etc.

[centurian]

There is more here.

One phrase struck me:

be broadly revenue neutral overall

That's for the overall process, not just for the IR35 component.

Also with two quallifiers "broadly" and "overall", that gives them sufficient leeway to do whatever they want on one specific element, without breaking that statement.

[Wanderer]

One phrase struck me:

be broadly revenue neutral overall

Which means:

IR35 inside people will pay less tax.
IR35 outside people will pay more tax.

Fantastic.