eek - why do you think it's scaremongering? What have you read or understood that I haven't that makes you think that contractors like us will not be affected?
-
-
Looking at the proposal the bit I quoted is the bit I believe is relevant to most people on here - We provide skills and knowledge that make most of us more than labour for hire directed by others.Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
The curious bit is the more I read page 15 the more it seems that consultancies will be the ones to lose out... If we go direct to the end client we can show without argument that we are specialists in our niche and the end client had no understanding of what we are doing there was so no chance of direction and control. If we sit with 5 other consultants working for a consultancy at the same end client that becomes a lot harder....
It will also utterly screw on-shored workers as HMRC will be planning to flag entire companies as under direction and control..merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
I think my reading is different to yours. The document discusses Personal Service Companies. The bit you quoted refers to Professional Service Firms who second staff - I guess this needs defining further - I agree that if we can argue that's what we are, then we're out of scope. My understanding was that this was in relation to intermediaries - i.e. a consultancy rather than an umbrella. I've raised the question on the IPSE forum too.Last edited by mudskipper; 11 July 2015, 11:04.Comment
-
The proposed rules regarding expenses are obviously written by persons who are clueless and have not thought the matter through.
When someone applies for a permanent job; work location is one of the main considerations because of travel time and cost. They would not consider taking a job in Scotland if they live in Reading for example. Even if they relocated, the risk of losing their job is too great to consider the same.
A contractor will approach it on the basis that it is a temporary inconvenience however, the travel expenses can be offset.
The situation will be; when there is a narrow margin on the rate, a contractor will not be willing to travel. Everybody loses including HMRC. The end clients will be moaning "We can't get the skills"."A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
-
The thing you assume here is that it hasn't been thought through. It has been thought through to a point which resulted in the rules being extended from umbrellas to personal service companies. Problem is they stopped there..Originally posted by Paddy View PostLast edited by eek; 11 July 2015, 13:51.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Even funnier when you include HMRC under those end clients.....Originally posted by Paddy View Post
It's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing."You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
It's only a consultation document dears, not a law. I am sure the PCG will stand up for us and fight hard to stop it ever becoming... oh, wait.
If it becomes law, it just seems like another penalty for working inside IR35. And therefore, an added incentive to work outside IR35. Did I miss something?Comment
-
Yes. You could be outside IR35 and still fall foul of this - if you are under supervision, direction OR control of the client. MOO and RoS aren't relevant. The "or" would make it much harder to argue - if any one of supervision, direction or control are present, your T&S expenses would not be allowed.Originally posted by unixman View PostComment
-
Comment