So...anybody ask for any of this?

[tractor]

Well the amount it "protects" is the supposed deterrent effect, with the caveat that they can't evidence these figures, and articles on CUK previously have cast aspersions on their validity.

Yes you are correct and I should have omitted the 'protects nothing' part. I was just shooting from the hip but you get my drift.

I agree, their assumptions are suspect and they would be prone to exaggerate and we conversely would of course, be prone to minimise but if the mythical 4.5m independents were to be taken out of NI at a stroke, the cost would be astronomical which is why IR35 will never, ever go away.

But as you all well know, we have learned to live with it, a little like a corn you have to pare away from time to time

[jamesbrown]

which is why IR35 will never, ever go away.

Well, unless a duck came along and rendered IR35 moot. That's the beauty of an FLC, it's an empty vessel. Quack.

[Zero Liability]

I think it's a matter of losing on every possible ground for justifying IR35. They showed up very poorly during the HOL review, being unable to evidence their figures and making several errors on top of it, rid of the BETs, failed to demonstrate contractors form PSCs with the sole intent of reducing their tax bill and have incredibly strained resources to administer a highly cost inefficient measure that often results in their defeat when challenged by semi-competent defence. In spite of this, they're upping the (still minuscule) number of investigations, to show some teeth.

So instead of beefing up IR35, they can just leave it in place and replace it with another, more fruitful approach, whilst it fades into irrelevance. It does make sense and I can see why many here are concerned.

Yes you are correct and I should have omitted the 'protects nothing' part. I was just shooting from the hip but you get my drift.

I agree, their assumptions are suspect and they would be prone to exaggerate and we conversely would of course, be prone to minimise but if the mythical 4.5m independents were to be taken out of NI at a stroke, the cost would be astronomical which is why IR35 will never, ever go away.

But as you all well know, we have learned to live with it, a little like a corn you have to pare away from time to time

I don't think their guestimates relate to the full 4.5m. After all, I suspect many of these individuals could, if they wanted, easily form "PSCs" that operate outside IR35. IIRC, it's to do with the number of contractors who draw less than they otherwise would in dividends, those that operate inside IR35 and those corralled into brollies.

Their assumptions are laid out on page 13 of this.

[tractor]

...

I think it's a matter of losing on every possible ground for justifying IR35. They showed up very poorly during the HOL review, being unable to evidence their figures and making several errors on top of it, rid of the BETs, failed to demonstrate contractors form PSCs with the sole intent of reducing their tax bill and have incredibly strained resources to administer a highly cost inefficient measure that often results in their defeat when challenged by semi-competent defence. In spite of this, they're upping the (still minuscule) number of investigations, to show some teeth.

So instead of beefing up IR35, they can just leave it in place and replace it with another, more fruitful approach, whilst it fades into irrelevance. It does make sense and I can see why many here are concerned.

I don't think their guestimates relate to the full 4.5m. After all, I suspect many of these individuals could, if they wanted, easily form "PSCs" that operate outside IR35. IIRC, it's to do with the number of contractors who draw less than they otherwise would in dividends, those that operate inside IR35 and those corralled into brollies.

I agree and I am (as you are probably aware) as worried about FLC as many are.

I only quote the 4.5m as it seems to be the number everyone else is basing their guesstimates on.

When I say it will never. ever go away, I mean in the current circumstances. Which is why you would think that a nice little package that makes it moot would be a win for Government, agents and HMRC.

But I can easily see who is most likely to lose from it.

[DiscoStu]

I agree and I am (as you are probably aware) as worried about FLC as many are.

I only quote the 4.5m as it seems to be the number everyone else is basing their guesstimates on.

When I say it will never. ever go away, I mean in the current circumstances. Which is why you would think that a nice little package that makes it moot would be a win for Government, agents and HMRC.

But I can easily see who is most likely to lose from it.

Ironically, I can see IPSE being a big loser from the FLC if it becomes mandatory (either by legislation or by agencies refusing to work with Ltd companies).

Take out IR35 cover from the list of IPSE benefits being offered and I can see a lot of people thinking twice about shelling out £280+ a year for membership.

[TykeMerc]

Ironically, I can see IPSE being a big loser from the FLC if it becomes mandatory (either by legislation or by agencies refusing to work with Ltd companies).

Take out IR35 cover from the list of IPSE benefits being offered and I can see a lot of people thinking twice about shelling out £280+ a year for membership.

Indeed.
Judging by the IPSE spokespersons behavior on here and the feedback of how involved the membership are from the members who post on here I'll be surprised if the membership numbers doesn't take a serious poke in the ribs.

From what we've seen of FLC's, IR35 becomes irrelevant by grounds of total capitulation so does the industry that's been set up to deal with IR35 issues.

I can't imagine why PCG recently re-branded as IPSE and is now trying to appeal to the wider self employed workforce, however a cynical person might interpret it as a corporate re-alignment after imminent market share collapse is forecast.

[TheFaQQer]

For IPSE members - there is an interesting post from the Chairman and the board about the manifesto in response to an "Open Letter to the Board". It's in the "General" forum and is well worth a read.

[TheFaQQer]

Judging by the IPSE spokespersons...

To be fair, there isn't a spokesperson from IPSE posting here. Two of the current CC members are CUK members, and one board member is also a CUK member.

However, as with many fora (including the IPSE ones), nothing that they post is an official IPSE view (unless stated). But they may be partial to information that others aren't.

[GlenW]

Ironically, I can see IPSE being a big loser from the FLC if it becomes mandatory (either by legislation or by agencies refusing to work with Ltd companies).

Take out IR35 cover from the list of IPSE benefits being offered and I can see a lot of people thinking twice about shelling out £280+ a year for membership.

I wouldn't even think twice, I'd be gone.

[DaveB]

For IPSE members - there is an interesting post from the Chairman and the board about the manifesto in response to an "Open Letter to the Board". It's in the "General" forum and is well worth a read.

It was interesting only in so far as it was a classic example of political waffle that avoided the question being asked.