Giving notice

[Denny]

That is itself full of opinions which you passed off as facts. Such as

"Gordo isn't interested in taking an annual work status overall into account whether within the context of your own business marketing efforts or not. In other words, if most of what you do one year satisfies Gordo's IR35 exemption criteria and, say, you only had only short contract that wouldn't be IR35 exempt, they're not going to be generous and treat you overall as an IR35 exempt on everything you've done that year."

Which, if you have read the various cases (Lime IT being a fine example) turns out to be bollocks. IR35 status is very much about pointers, precisely because the Commissioners know what a load of cack the legislation is. How do you think the PCG have managed to accumulate a score of 1211 wins to 3 losses to date? By not listening to you, for starters.

Given the choice between trusting your judgement and trusting that of the PCG, no prizes for guessing where my money would be going.

Actually, I said in my 'helpful advice' thread that there was a combo of facts and opinions. I never said that everything was factually correct from a legal standpoint and I specifically pointed out that I was neither an accountant or a solicitor. However, I do think that my advice was generally sound. Just because I write in an authorative style that suggests to readers that I know and believe in what I am saying, that doesn't mean that I am passing off my own opinions as 'facts'. That is your misinterpretation. However, I have stated many facts about the way the recruitment industry model works that some individuals on this forum still find hard to accept for reasons of their own.

There may not be the difference of opinion between us that you seem to be highlighting. The point you raise about IR35 pointers is correct but only within not outside the context of a particular contract role. Therefore there is no contradiction at all.

My stance on your more general point is that Gordo is just waiting in the wings to claim back taxes from contractors who were deemed to be outside of IR35 when they aren't. There may be an accumulation of wins regarding the PGC's attempts to intervene and I'm glad that this is the case. I'm certainly not in favour of IR35 nor do I believe that the IR's criteria for 'own business' and 'psuedu employee' distinctions is remotely convincing. Clearly some solicitors are taking advantage of that for the benefit of contractors on an 'as of now ' basis to rake in the cash rather than on a 'as will be' basis when the government do win more cases. I just hope, as you do to, that this 'deal with it now and see how the cards fall' approach is the right route to take in the longer term.

As I said before, I prefer to advise contractors to play 'safe' by assuming that they are inside IR35 if they are in any doubt about their working arrangmeents and claim back any tax owing if they are later deemed to be outside rather than take unnecessary risks at great expense in terms of getting legal advice with no long term gains overall.

If your solicitor can convince you that you are OK with your terms, even if you don't know your own working conditions, then go with it. I just hope that you don't end up regretting it later, that's all. I know how unyielding the IR can be and they don't consider ignorance or wrong advice as being an excuse for not paying the right taxes. As I put in another thread, the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is basically only what the IR think is expedient at any given time and how good someone's solicitor is.

I think we are different in our approach to dealing with the problem rather than we are different in our opinions on this more general matter.

[DodgyAgent]

OK, I know you are joking but only because I felt a bit stupid after taking this post so seriously. I thought you were serious this time round too and that there was a genuine misunderstanding about 'facts and opinions' rather than the wind up that it was leading to furious long winded responses from me which you must have been pissing yourself over. True I do take contractor issues seriously because they affect our livelihoods and people on here genuinely do need help and support rather than banter. I try to give that sincerely.

Actually, I do enjoy your posts most of the time even though we don't agree on much and I certainly enjoy a bit of winding up and a laugh too. I'm certainly not a humourless bore even though I am opinionated with strong views on some matters. I've even started doing a bit of winding up myself but usually on the 'general' forum.

I admit that this time it's DA - 1, Denny 0 (for not seeing through it earlier)

....but only this time, mind...

Denny, I am not winding you up at all. All I am saying is that you should not take yourself so seriously. By all means take your industry seriously. If you are providing useful information (which often you do) dont go and ruin it by proclaiming yourself as being someone "who provides useful information". Why?
Because firstly it goes to your head and you begin to believe your own publicity and self importance, at which point your opinions become more about you than anything else (are you aiming for a career inpolitics by any chance?) . Secondly it is not your decision to proclaim that you are of importance to others.

You have a very self destructive and silly attitude towards agencies. Yes most of them (or should that read "us"?) are gel haired *******, but you make no attempt to understand the dynamics behind our existence. This makes you a bit daft. So when you go off on one of your "all agents are parasites and we are victims" rants this has the effect of:

1. Making contractors appear weak and pathetic. I mean for gods sake are we really so much superior to you guys???
2. Making you look an arse because you fail to understand basic laws of business (that if agencies were of no use they would not exist)
3. Making you look stupid because your generalisations are actually wrong; most agencies operate in strict accordance with the law and other legal requirements.

You as a person offer a great deal; you do not need to be so insecure, so eager to put others in their place. You are better than that.

[Denny]

Denny, I am not winding you up at all. All I am saying is that you should not take yourself so seriously. By all means take your industry seriously. If you are providing useful information (which often you do) dont go and ruin it by proclaiming yourself as being someone "who provides useful information". Why?
Because firstly it goes to your head and you begin to believe your own publicity and self importance, at which point your opinions become more about you than anything else (are you aiming for a career inpolitics by any chance?) . Secondly it is not your decision to proclaim that you are of importance to others.

You have a very self destructive and silly attitude towards agencies. Yes most of them (or should that read "us"?) are gel haired *******, but you make no attempt to understand the dynamics behind our existence. This makes you a bit daft. So when you go off on one of your "all agents are parasites and we are victims" rants this has the effect of:

1. Making contractors appear weak and pathetic. I mean for gods sake are we really so much superior to you guys???
2. Making you look an arse because you fail to understand basic laws of business (that if agencies were of no use they would not exist)
3. Making you look stupid because your generalisations are actually wrong; most agencies operate in strict accordance with the law and other legal requirements.

You as a person offer a great deal; you do not need to be so insecure, so eager to put others in their place. You are better than that.

On the contrary I actually believe that contractors are their own worst enemy when they adopt the 'roll over the die' mentality. I fully understand why agencies exist - they tell us they're there to source candidates for end-client roles when they are really much more useful than that - to erect a convenient barrier between the organisation and the candidate to ensure they can circumvent 'employment' law whenever they feel like it. Some unfortunately take advantage of this power.

My attitude toward EB's (not agencies) is in accordance with my experiences of them and my knowledge about how they operate as an industry - no more and no less.

Yes, you are right when you say that 'most agencies' (why most, do you have figures?) act according to the law and so on. The problem is not that they don't ever comply with the law. The problem is which ones do and when? How are we going to tell, or how can we ever tell, when they are all capable of adopting shady practices or good practices, depending of which way the wind blows that largely depends on targets being met, who's in control, staff turnover etc. For that reason, I don't and have never believed in the concept of the 'good and bad' agency.' It's the fundamental industry model in relation to contractors that's skewed not the individual practices of individual 'agencies.'

The problem with recruiters on this forum is that they like to instill in contractors that they're weaklings or moaners if they dare to highlight their bad experiences of the industry. The macho right wing culture of self interest is, to my mind, a sure tell tale sign that some are capable of deluding themselves and adopting a Stockholm Syndrome mentality which is further reinforced when they use 'agency' appeasing' language like 'they found me a job' or 'they sell us into a role' or other such bulltulip.

Those who can see the industry practices for what they are usually doing plenty of work through private clients.

[tim123]

Ok - so why don't you show the agent complete loyalty????
They are after all a direct customer of yours with no middle man in the way...

Because they are in no position to guarentee me any extra work. All they can do is "keep in touch and put me forward". But they'll do this anyway, even if I tell them than I never ever want to deal with them again.

tim