So...anybody ask for any of this?

[tractor]

...

Of course, this is only appealing if such a merger resulted in a lower overall tax bill. Given how this itemisation of taxes to be produced by the current govt already excludes VAT, I'm sure they'll find other taxes - including good ol' fashioned QE - if necessary to make up the shortfall as they're allergic to doing anything to cut their spending. Unless the proposed merger were to either leave the tax burden the same, or lower it, why would contractors even want it?

It is logical to merge them as NI is just another employment tax but there's certainly no guarantee it'll benefit the taxpayer. In Labour's case, if they ignore their big business buddies, the tax to go up may well be the CT.

I have made this point several times and if the FLC proposal were to go ahead, they could easily have a 'special' rate for FLC's only. This is only one of the big risks.

[Pondlife]

I can't see any government having the cojones to merge NI and Income Tax. The change to Annuities was a pretty bold move and they've yet to see how that one pans out.

No chancellor wants to be the one to introduce an extra 25% (ish) of income tax even if the end result is the same for the majority. Look how quickly they were doing photo ops outside of Greggs after the pasty tax.

[d000hg]

When the matter was discussed at the House of Lords committee, the PCG chief executive said that creating a new corporate vehicle would be "a great way of painting a target on the backs of these people who are independent professionals and want to be treated just like every other limited company." and that the PCG members would not welcome that move.

But when an individual is twisting the use of a limited company - because there isn't really a better option - they are not "just like every other limited company" IMO. I don't think most contractors do want to be "treated just like every other limited company" except where it allows them to pay less tax

You can equally well view it as a way to paint a target, or as a way to recognise that the Ltd model doesn't really suit contractor/freelance workers very well and would be better replaced by something more specific.

A simplified system could of course be terrifying for all the contractor-focused businesses like contractor accountants, IR35 review specialists, etc, who thrive on the paperwork and complexities involved in running a company.

[eek]

I can't see any government having the cojones to merge NI and Income Tax. The change to Annuities was a pretty bold move and they've yet to see how that one pans out.

No chancellor wants to be the one to introduce an extra 25% (ish) of income tax even if the end result is the same for the majority. Look how quickly they were doing photo ops outside of Greggs after the pasty tax.

but it would only impact FLCs so the general public won't careless as it doesn't impact them....

I do wonder how no-one within IPSE can't think beyond the initial idea and see the potential consequences and risk their ideas create...

[d000hg]

I can't see any government having the cojones to merge NI and Income Tax.

Probably true, which is a real shame IMO. Maybe they'd have to get in and then do it right away so people have 4 years to get over it

[tractor]

...

But when an individual is twisting the use of a limited company - because there isn't really a better option - they are not "just like every other limited company" IMO. I don't think most contractors do want to be "treated just like every other limited company" except where it allows them to pay less tax

You can equally well view it as a way to paint a target, or as a way to recognise that the Ltd model doesn't really suit contractor/freelance workers very well and would be better replaced by something more specific.

A simplified system could of course be terrifying for all the contractor-focused businesses like contractor accountants, IR35 review specialists, etc, who thrive on the paperwork and complexities involved in running a company.

Given that we were forced into the use of a Limited structure in the first place by a government that then painted us as tax dodgers for doing so, we are hardly twisting the use of it unless it's for a different reason e.g. F2M or suchlike.

How would a Limited be better replaced by something else? This is the point that IPSE are struggling to explain.

[Pondlife]

but it would only impact FLCs so the general public won't careless as it doesn't impact them....

I do wonder how no-one within IPSE can't think beyond the initial idea and see the potential consequences and risk their ideas create...

And as soon as the tax implications change then someone clever tax lawyer will find away around it. If it results in less tax through a FLC you'll end up with IR35 2.0 type clusterfluck. That's the way the game is played, no?

[tractor]

...

And as soon as the tax implications change then someone clever tax lawyer will find away around it. If it results in less tax through a FLC you'll end up with IR35 2.0 type clusterfluck. That's the way the game is played, no?

And then there is a danger we will be labelled as tax dodgers because we chose an optional corporate structure

[d000hg]

Given that we were forced into the use of a Limited structure in the first place by a government

We were? I though agencies forced us to go the Ltd/Umbrella route - if you go direct sole trader is still an option in many cases.

[mudskipper]

Isn't it suicidal for ipse?

We all become FLCs, IR35 no longer applies, and for most of us membership becomes pointless...