So...anybody ask for any of this?

[eek]

Not read much of this thread. However I'm pretty sure if a FLC option becomes available the agencies and clients will insist on its use otherwise there won't be an offer. In just the same way things changed when contracting went from Self Employed to Limited. That will mean we'll all have to use a FLC and we will all be nicely grouped and sectioned away from the larger pool of normal limited companies and taxed in whatever way they want!

Absolutely correct. And it stops those of us who want to expand our business from being a 1 man band into a proper consultancy / business from doing so...

[malvolio]

<pedant>CC members don't represent the membership - they are representative members rather than member's representatives</pedant>

At least I think that's right

Pretty much, although personally I don't have a problem raising views, questions and opinions that I don't actually agree with.

I also don't go with the paranoid view that the "agencies" (that dread, united force... ) will demand you use an FLC. Why would they? Why don't they force everyone to use an umbrella, which would have the same effect and not require HMRC to do anything to collect un-owed taxes.

[eek]

Pretty much, although personally I don't have a problem raising views, questions and opinions that I don't actually agree with.

I also don't go with the paranoid view that the "agencies" (that dread, united force... ) will demand you use an FLC. Why would they? Why don't they force everyone to use an umbrella, which would have the same effect and not require HMRC to do anything to collect un-owed taxes.

Because as Lisa has pointed out in the past its very hard for agencies to identify which umbrellas are actually umbrellas and which are something else (I'm sure Andy Hallett would confirm that S3 have been caught by that in the past). So currently the safest option for an agency is the limited company with the contractor as a director. An "umbrella" unless properly checked and vetted is a bigger risk...

[malvolio]

Because as Lisa has pointed out in the past its very hard for agencies to identify which umbrellas are actually umbrellas and which are something else (I'm sure Andy Hallett would confirm that S3 have been caught by that in the past). So currently the safest option for an agency is the limited company with the contractor as a director. An "umbrella" unless properly checked and vetted is a bigger risk...

So by that logic, why do they allow anyone to use an umbrella?

[TheFaQQer]

Pretty much, although personally I don't have a problem raising views, questions and opinions that I don't actually agree with.

I also don't go with the paranoid view that the "agencies" (that dread, united force... ) will demand you use an FLC. Why would they? Why don't they force everyone to use an umbrella, which would have the same effect and not require HMRC to do anything to collect un-owed taxes.

HMRC start to force agencies to report financial dealings with Limited companies. HMRC exempt FLCs from the additional reporting requirements. Agencies force contractors to use umbrella or FLC. HMRC win.

But you know that - it's been mentioned here a few times, and also on the IPSE forums. If HMRC make life easier for agents if they force you to use an FLC, then that's what they will do.

[malvolio]

HMRC start to force agencies to report financial dealings with Limited companies. HMRC exempt FLCs from the additional reporting requirements. Agencies force contractors to use umbrella or FLC. HMRC win.

But you know that - it's been mentioned here a few times, and also on the IPSE forums. If HMRC make life easier for agents if they force you to use an FLC, then that's what they will do.

So why not simply force the agencies to use umbrellas off a list of approved, UK-based and registered ones and cut out the middleman and a pile of new, intermediary collection and auditing requirements?
Or force agencies to pay everyone via their payroll? Half the effort and way more taxes paid and collected...

There's caution and there's paranoia.

[eek]

So why not simply force the agencies to use umbrellas off a list of approved, UK-based and registered ones and cut out the middleman and a pile of new, intermediary collection and auditing requirements?
Or force agencies to pay everyone via their payroll? Half the effort and way more taxes paid and collected...

There's caution and there's paranoia.

or as I would call it world weary cynicism....

[tractor]

...

So why not simply force the agencies to use umbrellas off a list of approved, UK-based and registered ones and cut out the middleman and a pile of new, intermediary collection and auditing requirements?
Or force agencies to pay everyone via their payroll? Half the effort and way more taxes paid and collected...

There's caution and there's paranoia.

That is exactly what HMRC have been after for more than a decade.

[tarbera]

Thank you - I've created a separate thread to discuss the LFIG proposal as there's a lot of noise in this thread

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2022126

Congratulations on your new thread. when are you meeting the prime minister ?

http://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/...-no-10.108592/

[mudskipper]

Congratulations on your new thread. when are you meeting the prime minister ?

http://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/...-no-10.108592/

And miss a day's invoicing? Not a chance.

Rather than linking to a members' only thread which, by post two, is having a dig at CUKers, why not link to the public site, so everyone can read?

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/2014/pri...eelancers-no10


To clarify, the purpose of my new thread was to separate the discussion for Philip's proposal from the discussion of the ipse proposal as they seem to be separate things (as has been repeated several times in this thread). So not sure why the sarcasm's necessary?