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

[diseasex]

I.e. in most cases, we'd be PAYE with the agent and not the client.

I think it's clear what will happen here is not being on the client's payroll, which nobody wants, or even necessarily the agent's payroll, rather that both will have a responsibility for ensuring that you pay yourself via PAYE. I.e. it'll be in the contract, and they might ask for proof or you'll be in breach. Otherwise it would be an instant death sentence to umbrella companies who aren't the ones doing anything wrong.

it also says IT contractors wouldn't be affected and would be allowed to be considered business

[LondonManc]

£1400 is what I got in redundancy from my last job after 2 years. That's the minimum, and it wouldn't have mattered how great my salary was. I think everybody getting a month's salary per year of service, as some people believe, is actually quite rare these days.

If I'd been a contractor for that time, even if I paid all my taxes, I'd have made at the least £1000 per month more. So would have had £22000 instead of £1400.

Stitched up there pal. I got £8k after two years.

[meridian]

Stitched up there pal. I got £8k after two years.

The missus has been made redundant 3 times in the last 10 years, each time has been the statutory minimum of sod all.

A couple of permies at current clientco are going through the process now, they're looking at 3 months pay minimum though so not all companies have poor payouts.

[NigelJK]

So you are enrolled at sub-tax and NIC at your client, then when you ready you agree to terminate and take a 'Golden Handshake'. You are of course free to re-engage when you're ready.

AGREEMENTS TO TERMINATE

Even in the absence of a contractual right to terminate by giving a PILON, the employer and employee may reach an agreement to terminate on such a payment. So long as this is done only as part of the process of termination, the payment will not be regarded as deriving “from ” the employment but from the agreed terms for its termination and so will be regarded as a damages payment. In those circumstances the payment will fall within S.401 even though no breach of contract has occurred.

[MicrosoftBob]

it also says IT contractors wouldn't be affected and would be allowed to be considered business

They said IR35 would only affect the Monday to Friday permy to contractors, but we know the reality

[d000hg]

They said IR35 would only affect the Monday to Friday permy to contractors, but we know the reality

That it affected barely anyone?

[MrWebDev]

Have many of you on here had much success in writing to your MP? I wrote a letter to mine which was basically a combination of the IPSE template, Lisa's template and a few bits of my own. I've had absolutely nothing back, even after emailing six-weeks later I received a reply from her secretary saying that a response "would be made a priority".

Maybe she didn't like the fact that I pointed out that MP's receive tax free expenses whilst they plan on taking ours away?

[GB9]

I.e. in most cases, we'd be PAYE with the agent and not the client.

I think it's clear what will happen here is not being on the client's payroll, which nobody wants, or even necessarily the agent's payroll, rather that both will have a responsibility for ensuring that you pay yourself via PAYE. I.e. it'll be in the contract, and they might ask for proof or you'll be in breach. Otherwise it would be an instant death sentence to umbrella companies who aren't the ones doing anything wrong.

And that wouldn't be too bad. Better paye on £x per day than a ftc or a 'paid consultant' bodge up. Upsides would be not having to worry about changing projects within a client and not peeing everyone off by refusing to act like a permie.

If we got to keep the 5% expenses that would also help.

My main concern would be being on the payroll of client or agent as I think that would lead to a proliferation of the ftc or ec model.

[TheFaQQer]

it also says IT contractors wouldn't be affected and would be allowed to be considered business

No, it says that an IT contractor providing services for a short time would be considered a business.

Specifying by industry is fraught with difficulty - would it be by SOC? Who maintains the list? How often will the list be revised / reviewed? etc.

[MrMarkyMark]

No, it says that an IT contractor providing services for a short time would be considered a business.

Specifying by industry is fraught with difficulty - would it be by SOC? Who maintains the list? How often will the list be revised / reviewed? etc.

Going to be a fat lot of good for financial services / security cleared roles.
It take 5 weeks, on average, to get the background checks, completed, in finance, for example.