"let’s be honest, there isn’t a contractor out there that will pass a IR35 audit"

[eek]

Remember this legislation is nothing to do with limited company contractors (no matter what others want to claim).

This as I know Lisa would confirm is about identifying those agencies who outsource their staff to the dodgier umbrellas who then use whatever trick they can find to reduce NI and taxes (but mainly Employers NI) by whatever tricks they can identify....

And as I said earlier this website is nothing more than a marketing tool for a desperate tax scheme as my sacrificial email address will no doubt reveal early next week....

[mudskipper]

Remember this legislation is nothing to do with limited company contractors (no matter what others want to claim).

This as I know Lisa would confirm is about identifying those agencies who outsource their staff to the dodgier umbrellas who then use whatever trick they can find to reduce NI and taxes (but mainly Employers NI) by whatever tricks they can identify....

And as I said earlier this website is nothing more than a marketing tool for a desperate tax scheme as my sacrificial email address will no doubt reveal early next week....

I think you are mistaken.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/guides/new-re...ments-agencies

People are already being asked for this information. Refusing is likely to mean the agency refusing to do business with you.

[eek]

I think you are mistaken.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/guides/new-re...ments-agencies

People are already being asked for this information. Refusing is likely to mean the agency refusing to do business with you.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The intention has got nothing to do with us but we are caught by HMRCs
1) attempt to use everything as an absolute catch all.
2) need to remove plausible get out clauses that might by used by those this is intended to catch.

The intention is to identify and deal with dodgy umbrella companies we supposedly are included to remove a get out clause (that's from the horses mouth of the product owner of the system down the pub)...

[Paddy]

Sorry I wasn't clear. The intention has got nothing to do with us but we are caught by HMRCs
1) attempt to use everything as an absolute catch all.
2) need to remove plausible get out clauses that might by used by those this is intended to catch.

The intention is to identify and deal with dodgy umbrella companies we supposedly are included to remove a get out clause (that's from the horses mouth of the product owner of the system down the pub)...

The legislation seems to be clear, it includes limited companies.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../made/data.pdf

S.84
(iv)
where the reason for the non deduction given in (iii) is that the paymentsmade are to a limited company the full name of the company and companyregistration number of that company; and
(v)
whether the payments included amounts in respect of Value Added Tax.

[Zero Liability]

That's what he just said. The agencies have to report on payments made to limited companies but the intention at present isn't focused on IR35 compliance (or anything else relating to limited companies per se) but on dodgy umbrellas, with the intention of preventing these agencies from using work-arounds.

The scam quoted in the OP should come with the "based on a true story" or "a fictionalised account of reality" moniker, or something similar, because it goes from a true fact, to making a vast leap in logic, as if they know that HMRC will be using these new requirements to fast track 10's or 100's of 000's of contractors through IR35 reviews, which apparently no one could pass, in spite of HMRC losing a good proportion of these cases.

I do think if the FLC concept goes somewhere, as others have suggested here and elsewhere, it may then be used as an attempt to do away with ltd company contracting, but that's not yet realised, and may potentially never come to be. If it does, however, judging from the moronic over-reactions of some agencies to this legislation, I can see why the FLC (should it be exempted from reporting requirements) could pose a threat.

[centurian]

From April 1st every recruitment company that engages with contractors will have to report directly to HMRC supplying them with information about you and your contract details under the disguised self employment regulations.
This include your personal details, national insurance number, end user client details and how much they paid you; whats more is they will have to retain this information and continue reporting on it for 12 months, even after your assignment ends.


Is that true?

Yes - and it will mean that HMRC will now have - err - pretty much exactly the same information that they will already have from your tax return (assuming you fill in the PSC section).

[Paddy]

That's what he just said. The agencies have to report on payments made to limited companies but the intention at present isn't focused on IR35 compliance (or anything else relating to limited companies per se) but on dodgy umbrellas, with the intention of preventing these agencies from using work-arounds.

The scam quoted in the OP should come with the "based on a true story" or "a fictionalised account of reality" moniker, or something similar, because it goes from a true fact, to making a vast leap in logic, as if they know that HMRC will be using these new requirements to fast track 10's or 100's of 000's of contractors through IR35 reviews, which apparently no one could pass, in spite of HMRC losing a good proportion of these cases.

I do think if the FLC concept goes somewhere, as others have suggested here and elsewhere, it may then be used as an attempt to do away with ltd company contracting, but that's not yet realised, and may potentially never come to be. If it does, however, judging from the moronic over-reactions of some agencies to this legislation, I can see why the FLC (should it be exempted from reporting requirements) could pose a threat.

Reading Hansard was rather laughable because prior presenting the amendment to the Commons; it appears the debate was about HSBC and their clients tax evasion. Of course nothing was done about HSBC

[Zero Liability]

They can all pat themselves on the back, call it a day and go have a few drinks to celebrate all the good that they (pretend they) have done.

[OwlHoot]

From April 1st every recruitment company that engages with contractors will have to report directly to HMRC supplying them with information about you and your contract details under the disguised self employment regulations.
This include your personal details, national insurance number, end user client details and how much they paid you; whats more is they will have to retain this information and continue reporting on it for 12 months, even after your assignment ends.


Is that true?

This is the point. The article may sound a bit scammy and scaremongery, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

[Zero Liability]

On that point. The rest is pure fear mongering.