Family business tax back on the agenda.

[AtW]

and why not?

ISA is capped at fairly low amount and it is biased to make people prop up the stock market, it's not a problem for Govt if people put money there.

You only get tax free interest on cash ISAs anyway, hardly a massive tax loss to the Govt given current low rates.

[Wanderer]

What are the PCG suggesting the replacement for IR35 actually is? And what is their definition of a genuine contractor? How many of the PCG paying members would be classed as genuine?

I'd love to hear answers to this too, especially considering the PCG have campaigned so hard to get IR35 abolished....

I quite liked the situation where those of us "in the know" worked outside IR35 with the and the great unwashed were bullied into thinking they were IR35 caught.

We are now going to get a "simpler, fairer" tax system whereby the outside IR35 people will pay a lot more tax (effectively IR35 caught) and that sucks. The PCG should have kept their heads below the parapet on this one IMHO.

[malvolio]

I'd love to hear answers to this too, especially considering the PCG have campaigned so hard to get IR35 abolished....

I quite liked the situation where those of us "in the know" worked outside IR35 with the and the great unwashed were bullied into thinking they were IR35 caught.

We are now going to get a "simpler, fairer" tax system whereby the outside IR35 people will pay a lot more tax (effectively IR35 caught) and that sucks. The PCG should have kept their heads below the parapet on this one IMHO.

That shows a serious degree of naivety, I'm afraid. The current situation is utterly unsustainable and always has been, the trick is to get the best resolution

I did answer this question earlier and in some depth but no doubt owing to my great and ever-increasing age, I seem not to have posted it. Or the mods disagreed with what I said and deleted it. (just kidding, chaps... _

Anyway, to summarise: I have no idea. I doubt we'll know any time soon either; the OTS has to report in time for the next budget, which means they won't have time to develop a fully worked proposal. However from my position of ignorance I think we can assume that whatever happens there will still have to be something to address disguised employement which is an issue in some industries, plus since HMG has said it's a bad thing, no administration is going to say "Actually no, it isn't". Which means we hope for something that gets the genuine contractor out of the firing line, but don't ask me what. Abolition almost certianly won't be the final answer: we ain't going back to 1999, whatever happens.

What I can say is that the PCG having a seat at the OTS means that at least there will be a credible and highly respected voice for the real contractor. They ain't about to abandon their 20,000 members nor the rest of the contractor community.

[NotAllThere]

I did answer this question earlier and in some depth but no doubt owing to my great and ever-increasing age, I seem not to have posted it. Or the mods disagreed with what I said and deleted it. ...

Just to confirm - it's your age.

[OwlHoot]

They are going to screw us. They'll nail down IR35 .

FTFY

(and I don't mean in its coffin)

[malvolio]

Just to confirm - it's your age.

Sorry, you'll have to speak up...

[ChimpMaster]

<snip>
Which means we hope for something that gets the genuine contractor out of the firing line, but don't ask me what. Abolition almost certianly won't be the final answer: we ain't going back to 1999, whatever happens.

What I can say is that the PCG having a seat at the OTS means that at least there will be a credible and highly respected voice for the real contractor. They ain't about to abandon their 20,000 members nor the rest of the contractor community.

I fear the Australian 80/20 type of rule. I would think that most contractors work at a single client at any one time, and - given the chance - a good contractor will be able to win extensions through proposals or strong client relationship building.

Most clients I work at have fairly long requirements of 6 months to several years. Many of them simply would not allow working for multiple clients, due to confidentiality agreements (banking for example).

Given these situations, my concern would be that I would not be seen as a "genuine contractor" because I am at a single client for the whole financial year.

Yes there are also many contractors who work at multiple clients in a year, perhaps on several short-term assignments. It's just a different situation but mine is no less "genuine" contracting than that;.

[Wanderer]

my concern would be that I would not be seen as a "genuine contractor"

Hmm, I wonder what percentage of the 20,000 PCG members would actually be considered to be one of these mythical "genuine contractors".

[malvolio]

Hmm, I wonder what percentage of the 20,000 PCG members would actually be considered to be one of these mythical "genuine contractors".

According to the last survey, that would be all of them.

BTW while I think having multiple clients is a good indicator of itself, the Aussie 80/20 rule would not work in the UK anyway; despite superficial similarities their contracting model is different to ours. And as you say, retaining a client for a long time is good business practice anyway.

[bobspud]

I fear the Australian 80/20 type of rule. I would think that most contractors work at a single client at any one time, and - given the chance - a good contractor will be able to win extensions through proposals or strong client relationship building.

Most clients I work at have fairly long requirements of 6 months to several years. Many of them simply would not allow working for multiple clients, due to confidentiality agreements (banking for example).

Given these situations, my concern would be that I would not be seen as a "genuine contractor" because I am at a single client for the whole financial year.

Yes there are also many contractors who work at multiple clients in a year, perhaps on several short-term assignments. It's just a different situation but mine is no less "genuine" contracting than that;.

Ah but is your customer the bank or the agency? I'd keep quiet and let the C stream students introduce another bill that the A stream barristers can drive a bus through (again)