So...anybody ask for any of this?

[eek]

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.

If it was me the bit I would be emphasising is not those of us who want to be freelance but how the scheme could be abused by those trying to cut costs.

An FLC would be an easy way for unscrupulous employers to:-

• avoid paying mileage to home carers
• avoid paying NI to airport duty free workers.....

And that is just a couple of the recent tribunal decisions I remember... Remember we are freelance because we want to be, many people are freelance because their employer prefers it that way....

[malvolio]

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.

Because not doing that would invalidate the whole idea of having an FLC in the first place.

[eek]

Because not doing that would invalidate the whole idea of having an FLC in the first place.

That might invalidate the idea of an FLC to you and IPSE it does the exact opposite in HMRC's eyes....

[OwlHoot]

Because not doing that would invalidate the whole idea of having an FLC in the first place.

If I'm not missing some sarcasm here, you're saying FLCs are such a spiffing idea per se that we shouldn't start worrying about their many potential downsides for fear of persuading ourselves they aren't such a good idea after all.

That's like saying those yellow stars Jewish people had to start wearing in Nazi Germany were so pretty and distinctive that it would be crass to worry about any ulterior motive for introducing them and their scope for abuse.

[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.

I disagree. I am of the mind that HMRC have been working on this idea for a while. They just needed to find someone to take it on and promote it. I think LFIG and Ross have taken that mantle and now everyone else is jumping on the band wagon with their own perception of HMRC's great wheeze thinking it's their own wonderful idea.

I have no doubt that if it comes to pass, it will be a disaster for contracting as we know it, Jim.

[Zero Liability]

It will allow them to slowly let the embarrassment that is IR35 die away, since it will only apply to those who contract directly, if things play out as people suspect they will. And those contractors are also the ones whom I suspect can put together the most effective defences against HMRC's self-contradictory, archaic tripe, so it will effectively be killed off since the vast majority will work via agencies, anyway.

[Lightwave]

It will allow them to slowly let the embarrassment that is IR35 die away, since it will only apply to those who contract directly, if things play out as people suspect they will. And those contractors are also the ones whom I suspect can put together the most effective defences against HMRC's self-contradictory, archaic tripe, so it will effectively be killed off since the vast majority will work via agencies, anyway.

How do we draw the conclusion it will not affect people contracting via agencies?

[Zero Liability]

I never implied it wouldn't - quite the contrary, it'd render IR35 all but moot.

[TykeMerc]

I never implied it wouldn't - quite the contrary, it'd render IR35 all but moot.

By capitulation.

Once contractors are under the FLC rules then they are free to impose IR35 type treatment by default and IR35 goes away, HMRC wins.

I still can't see a scenario where FLC's are anything other than a severely negative step for us as contractors and the illusion of "optionality" will rapidly disappear under the reality of how agencies elect to do business.

[Zero Liability]

Mutual capitulation, as I would consider it as much an admission of defeat from HMRC insofar as IR35 is concerned... but undoubtedly a much grander victory for them if the fears expressed here do come true, which they may well do.