Crackdown on personal service companies could raise £400m in tax

[ShandyDrinker]

Is it me or is everyone knee-jerking about an article in the Grauniad about something that might happen or might not?

It's not just you. I think there's a lot of FUD being spread around.

It's not just you. Not necessarily a knee jerk reaction as such, I think many (me included) are just trying to understand the bigger picture. Until we hear any detail in the Autumn statement, if indeed anything is announced, everything at this stage is just speculation.

[eek]

It's not just you. I think there's a lot of FUD being spread around.

+2. I read the article as some proposals are going forward to remove fake self employment and left it at that. The devil is in the detail and we won't get that until the end of the month (if we are lucky, it could be later than that).

And I don't think the 90% figure is anything to worry about, if it covers those forced to use an umbrella not just PSCs.

Oh and Hmrc don't want the big outsources to win. They feel utterly cheated by the outsourcing Giants and want to escape that scenario

[MicrosoftBob]

+2. I read the article as some proposals are going forward to remove fake self employment and left it at that. The devil is in the detail and we won't get that until the end of the month (if we are lucky, it could be later than that).

And I don't think the 90% figure is anything to worry about, if it covers those forced to use an umbrella not just PSCs.

Oh and Hmrc don't want the big outsources to win. They feel utterly cheated by the outsourcing Giants and want to escape that scenario

Why should HMRC care it's not their money they're wasting, surely their budget comes from the same magic money tree Comrade Corbyn is so keen on

[administrator]

Until we actually see the details in the Autumn Statement it is all conjecture. The details of the Guardian piece don't look promising though due to the snippet jamesbrown quoted. Here it is again:

A government source said: “This is about fairness in the tax system. It is just not fair to have people in the same company doing the same jobs paying different levels of tax."

It appears to be propaganda put out by the Gov to a few journalists. As others have said in this thread, to show the masses that they are doing something about this "problem". The fact that the news has been put out there is what is making some of us jumpy.

Like I said, until we actually see the detail then we can't say for sure about any of it. Going to feel like a long wait for the 25th though.

[SueEllen]

Why should HMRC care it's not their money they're wasting, surely their budget comes from the same magic money tree Comrade Corbyn is so keen on

They actually care because the out-sourcers aren't delivering what they promised on time, then one of HMRC's head honchos has to go to a Commons Select Committee and explain why they haven't delivered the project they promised.

Also government departments have difficultly getting permanent staff with the very poor salaries they are offering compared to the private sector for the skills they want.

[BrilloPad]

It appears to be propaganda put out by the Gov to a few journalists.

Which is how things start. Government will gauge public reaction.

I am disappointed that admin and mods seem intent on pouring oil on unfounded speculation! This is CUK! Let the extrapolation begin....

[jamesbrown]

Until we actually see the details in the Autumn Statement it is all conjecture. The details of the Guardian piece don't look promising though due to the snippet jamesbrown quoted. Here it is again:

It appears to be propaganda put out by the Gov to a few journalists. As others have said in this thread, to show the masses that they are doing something about this "problem". The fact that the news has been put out there is what is making some of us jumpy.

Like I said, until we actually see the detail then we can't say for sure about any of it. Going to feel like a long wait for the 25th though.

Agreed, even down to the choice of papers. However, it can't be dismissed as taking us no further forward than the IR35 discussion and T&S consultation. This has been briefed and, a month after the end of the discussion and consultation, it alludes to a default position that involves something more draconian and, potentially, on a shorter timeframe than might have been anticipated. Certainly, the detail will matter, but the overall message and timing also matters because it cements the IR35 discussion as a position leading into the CBI conference and Autumn Statement (in case anyone was in any doubt) and one in which the favoured approach is probably a draconian one that doesn't mess around with SDC and instead accepts that employment is a necessary outcome (and not just for tax purposes, hence the need to sell this to CBI).

[stek]

It's not just you. I think there's a lot of FUD being spread around.

Why did NAT get loads of thanks for that when it was basically affirming my previous post wot I got no thanks for?

It's 'Thanks' for the boys isn't it?

[Zero Liability]

on a shorter timeframe than might have been anticipated.

Do you mean that as in April 2016 instead of 2017 for the IR35 stuff?

[ShandyDrinker]

Do you mean that as in April 2016 instead of 2017 for the IR35 stuff?

God help us all if that's the case...

My interpretation was that it would be in line with IR35 in 2017. However, given the current appetite from Gideon and friends, we could be in for further shocks yet sooner than anticipated.

With the number of friends Gideon is making right now... I really don't fancy his chances to be the next PM.