Travel & Subsistence in the budget?

[TykeMerc]

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.

I suggest that you get the sainted IPSE to work on our behalf then, after all they claim to have a mandate to represent our interests. According to the ever arrogant Malvolio IPSE have a seat at the tables of power and the ear of the policy makers.

Of course those claims could turn out to be a total load of fabricated bollocks and the most recent "victory" of a Small Business Minister just turns out to be another in the long line of farces that have been inflicted on the contracting community.

I'm not having a go at you MS, I respect you and the few who stood for the IPSE elections recently, but I do feel that IPSE has a lot to answer for with all the past claims they've made in the context of this recent budget.

[DimPrawn]

The end clients will be moaning "We can't get the skills".

https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-intracompa...-visa/overview

Sorted. How many millions would sir like?

[Paddy]

https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-intracompa...-visa/overview

Sorted. How many millions would sir like?

Have you noticed that nearly all of the agents are on the approved sponsor list?

[unixman]

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.

Hmm. I thought that you would presently be deemed to be working inside IR35 anyway "if any one of supervision, direction or control are present". Well anyway, the proposal seems a little unfair as it impacts genuine contractors (who travel widely and thereby generate expenses) but does not affect those doing a permanent job "off payroll", often in the public sector, pretending to be contractors while sitting at the same desk for 10 years, 5 miles from their home, and not incurring expenses. It seems almost designed to achieve the opposite of what the government wants (to reduce off-payroll charades). And is perhaps, therefore unlikely to become law.

...especially once IPSE gets their formidable lobbying machinery into gear, pressing arguments such as the above at all the top tables, don't you worry mate, it will be all... oh, wait...

[mudskipper]

I suggest that you get the sainted IPSE to work on our behalf then, after all they claim to have a mandate to represent our interests. According to the ever arrogant Malvolio IPSE have a seat at the tables of power and the ear of the policy makers.

Of course those claims could turn out to be a total load of fabricated bollocks and the most recent "victory" of a Small Business Minister just turns out to be another in the long line of farces that have been inflicted on the contracting community.

I'm not having a go at you MS, I respect you and the few who stood for the IPSE elections recently, but I do feel that IPSE has a lot to answer for with all the past claims they've made in the context of this recent budget.

Well, I don't yet know what IPSE can/can't achieve in relation to this, but they are collating evidence and will be making the case for contractors. I believe the request for feedback to their questions is going to be opened to non members, so if/when it is, it could be useful if you would respond too. I know not whether any good of it will come, but it can't do any harm. You can also feedback directly to the consultation as an individual/write to your MP etc.


One of the things that struck me from the summary of responses to the discussion document was this:

Key Themes

G. Damage to flexible workforce: It was suggested that contractors may have to
turn down work if they cannot claim travel expenses; this might limit employers’
ability to recruit temporary and mobile workers and therefore presents a significant
risk to business and the economic recovery. It will also disadvantage UK business
against others in Europe. With workers unable to take as many jobs, the number of
individuals on benefits will also rise.


Response

G. The government has received no evidence that changes in this area will
impact negatively on the flexible workforce and we do not believe this will be
the case

It strikes me that this is an area where IPSE can provide a strong argument. Whether or not they will have any impact on the final outcome, I don't know.

[eek]

As someone posted on the ipse forum:-

I could join a consultancy on a permanent basis where they use my home as a base and all travel is expensible or doing the exact same job as a contractor potentially as an associate of the same consultancy have to pay the exact same travel costs from taxed drawings...

Yes, I know its possibly not the case for all contractors but the above must be true for any contractor who specialises in 1 or 2 particular products...

The killer will be when you are delivering this on a multi-site project... One option I currently have on the table has visits to Sheffield, Reading and Southampton... Try doing that without expenses...

[SimonMac]

Wow, somone is in dire need of a few happy pills

Will ANY contractor pass HMRC's proposed Supervision, Direction and Control test? :: Contractor UK

[cojak]

I ALWAYS like to see who writes an article and what's in it for them.

As it is, I would imagine that Mr Scott would like all 'doomed' contractors to head for, and sign up to, Liberty Bishop...

[eek]

I ALWAYS like to see who writes an article and what's in it for them.

As it is, I would imagine that Mr Scott would like all 'doomed' contractors to head for, and sign up to, Liberty Bishop...

He is to a certain point right. As the template letter for MPs I'm working on will demonstrate:-

1) A three line whip puts an MP under both supervision and direction. Depending on how ill they are and the importance of the vote taking place they may also be under control.

2) Given that they are subject to supervision, direction or control their place of work has to be the house of Commons. As such their travel expenses to London and their second home allowance is no longer tenable and those costs should be coming from their parliamentary salary...

Yes I am being utterly awkward but given that we now have fixed term 5 year parliaments moving to London is simply a requirement they accepted when standing in May...

[SimonMac]

He is to a certain point right. As the template letter for MPs I'm working on will demonstrate:-

1) A three line whip puts an MP under both supervision and direction. Depending on how ill they are and the importance of the vote taking place they may also be under control.

2) Given that they are subject to supervision, direction or control their place of work has to be the house of Commons. As such their travel expenses to London and their second home allowance is no longer tenable and those costs should be coming from their parliamentary salary...

Yes I am being utterly awkward but given that we now have fixed term 5 year parliaments moving to London is simply a requirement they accepted when standing in May...

Parliamentary Privilege means they can pretty much do what they like, otherwise the two year rule would stop them from day 1 claiming expenses