So...anybody ask for any of this?

[TheFaQQer]

Yeah but I can understand that by taking a negative stance for the start they risk the same alienation from Gov that we're getting from the BoD for exactly the same reason. i.e. We've given this a lot of thought so either present a better idea or shut your pie-hole.

I still don't understand why IPSE couldn't say "as we testified to the House of Lords, this is a bad idea and here is why it's a bad idea and why it will never work" rather than saying "as we testified to the House of Lords, this is a bad idea, but we've made a U-turn and because it's optional, our members would welcome this and you should do something as soon as possible" which is what they have done.

[TheFaQQer]

I cannot work out who thought of it first, IPSE or Gummint. I know who my money is on.

HMRC.

[Pondlife]

I still don't understand why IPSE couldn't say "as we testified to the House of Lords, this is a bad idea and here is why it's a bad idea and why it will never work" rather than saying "as we testified to the House of Lords, this is a bad idea, but we've made a U-turn and because it's optional, our members would welcome this and you should do something as soon as possible" which is what they have done.

Agreed.

[malvolio]

I cannot work out who thought of it first, IPSE or Gummint. I know who my money is on.

Neither. It seems to have originated from a NL think tank at the last conference.

There is a clear need to isolate contractors from employees and employers in the tax system. The FLC is one mechanism for doing this, and there a load of ways an FLC can be created. Do not assume that Ross's version, for example, is anywhere near a solution, for all the reasons we've seen on here.

And it's not only about tax; to a large extent it's not even about tax as much as it is about reasonable treatment by the authroities. A lot of the agencies bollocks that pushes us towards having to use heavily modified employment contracts with assorted get out of IR35 clauses is driven by their fear of the Agency Regs, AWR, Onshore Umbrella rules, the new threatened reporting nonsense (which is truly dangerous if you look at what they will have to provide - name, address, NI No, day rate...) and the rest. If we are labelled clearly as "freelance contractor" all that nonsense is immediately out of scope.

[eek]

Neither. It seems to have originated from a NL think tank at the last conference.

There is a clear need to isolate contractors from employees and employers in the tax system. The FLC is one mechanism for doing this, and there a load of ways an FLC can be created. Do not assume that Ross's version, for example, is anywhere near a solution, for all the reasons we've seen on here.

And it's not only about tax; to a large extent it's not even about tax as much as it is about reasonable treatment by the authroities. A lot of the agencies bollocks that pushes us towards having to use heavily modified employment contracts with assorted get out of IR35 clauses is driven by their fear of the Agency Regs, AWR, Onshore Umbrella rules, the new threatened reporting nonsense (which is truly dangerous if you look at what they will have to provide - name, address, NI No, day rate...) and the rest. If we are labelled clearly as "freelance contractor" all that nonsense may be immediately out of scope.

FTFY as there is you cannot assume that any new legal entity moves those things out of scope. Many of those things could actually be brought into scope because its a different entity type so there is no harm in doing it.

Remember 1 concern I have is that the FLC only makes sense when you look at that reporting requirement....

[TykeMerc]

If we are labelled clearly as "freelance contractor" all that nonsense is immediately out of scope.

Which all indicates that if you honestly think that scenario will play out that you really should put down the crack pipe and step away, a LONG way away.

As soon as you hand HMRC and HMG an excuse to slap all contractors into a separate box away from the protection of the sheer mass of Ltd companies, Dividend rules and shareholdings then you also hand them unfettered rights to impose rules that make IR35 look attractive.

You have to be truly naive to think that they won't jump at the opportunity to take a subset of the tax paying community and apply a special rule-set that suits their agenda.

[malvolio]

Which all indicates that if you honestly think that scenario will play out that you really should put down the crack pipe and step away, a LONG way away.

As soon as you hand HMRC and HMG an excuse to slap all contractors into a separate box away from the protection of the sheer mass of Ltd companies, Dividend rules and shareholdings then you also hand them unfettered rights to impose rules that make IR35 look attractive.

You have to be truly naive to think that they won't jump at the opportunity to take a subset of the tax paying community and apply a special rule-set that suits their agenda.

Yeah, yeah - but if we don't contribute, it will happen anyway. You won't stop it by ignoring it.

It's not me being naïve here.

[tractor]

...

Neither. It seems to have originated from a NL think tank at the last conference.

There is a clear need to isolate contractors from employees and employers in the tax system. The FLC is one mechanism for doing this, and there a load of ways an FLC can be created. Do not assume that Ross's version, for example, is anywhere near a solution, for all the reasons we've seen on here.

And it's not only about tax; to a large extent it's not even about tax as much as it is about reasonable treatment by the authroities. A lot of the agencies bollocks that pushes us towards having to use heavily modified employment contracts with assorted get out of IR35 clauses is driven by their fear of the Agency Regs, AWR, Onshore Umbrella rules, the new threatened reporting nonsense (which is truly dangerous if you look at what they will have to provide - name, address, NI No, day rate...) and the rest. If we are labelled clearly as "freelance contractor" all that nonsense is immediately out of scope.

As Eek pointed out, you say this as if you have authority over it. You do not. Once they have agreement to it, all promises will go out of the window. Guaranteed.

The only people who are treated fairly by government and tax authorities are those with deep pockets and big lawyers; plus of course, the legislators themselves. Ask Amazon. That was why they did not keep tinkering with the IR35 legislation, they saw how serious we were with the JR and they did not want long drawn out case afte case.

[ZARDOZ]

Which all indicates that if you honestly think that scenario will play out that you really should put down the crack pipe and step away, a LONG way away.

As soon as you hand HMRC and HMG an excuse to slap all contractors into a separate box away from the protection of the sheer mass of Ltd companies, Dividend rules and shareholdings then you also hand them unfettered rights to impose rules that make IR35 look attractive.

You have to be truly naive to think that they won't jump at the opportunity to take a subset of the tax paying community and apply a special rule-set that suits their agenda.

This^ 100%. As much as they have tried to attack Freelancing through a limited company as disguised employment, they have struggled to apply rules which would not have implications on all Limited companies, they ended up with vagaries like the IR35 legisaltion, which is largely uninforcable. If they are able to create a new entity they can then apply new rules to this entity without hurting what they deem aceptable limited companies. It's a political win win. Other companies won't care and HMRC has the solution it's long been looking for.
IPSE approach seems to be a bit like a small group of Wilderbeast deciding to go it alone from the herd and expecting the Lion not to eat them because it's made assurances to them that it's now a vegitarian.

[TheFaQQer]

If we are labelled clearly as "freelance contractor" all that nonsense is immediately out of scope.

On what factual basis are you making such grand promises? Your speculation is fact, whereas anyone else who you disagree with is worrying needlessly about things that will never happen.

To quote from Star Wars:

Luke: Your over-confidence is your weakness
Palpatine: Your faith in your friends is yours

Both of those lines seem fitting here.