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

[jamesbrown]

Crackdown on personal service companies could raise £400m in tax | Politics | The Guardian

"Amid fears that business will complain of fresh regulations, the government is proposing that a consultant using a personal service company would be obliged to move on to the payroll if they work for a business for more than a month. Businesses, rather than the individual, would be responsible for overseeing the rules. An agency would be responsible if they provide consultants to businesses."

"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."

[tarbera]

Could be worse, we could be forced to sit on spikes

[vetran]

"Amid fears that business will complain of fresh regulations, the government is proposing that a consultant using a personal service company would be obliged to move on to the payroll if they work for a business for more than a month. Businesses, rather than the individual, would be responsible for overseeing the rules. An agency would be responsible if they provide consultants to businesses."

"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."

Aim, see toes fire!


They really don't understand do they??

[jamesbrown]

Could be worse, we could be forced to sit on spikes

Yeah The article itself is a jumbled mess, but it's clearly pointing to a fundamental change, far beyond the T&S proposal. Gideon in "listening mode" at the CBI next week. Yeah, right.

[Zero Liability]

When would this come in? Sounds utterly bonkers and even stupider than the ignorance already displayed in the T&S consultation doc.

[jamesbrown]

When would this come in? Sounds utterly bonkers and even stupider than the ignorance already displayed in the T&S consultation doc.

All bets are off, assuming Nick Watt hasn't completely jumped the shark (and it is a pretty crap article). If they're considering something that stupid, they could consider a stupid timeframe too, although I'd still bet on April 2017 given how far reaching the impacts would be (including for gov't departments).

[Zero Liability]

All bets are off, assuming Nick Watt hasn't completely jumped the shark (and it is a pretty crap article). If they're considering something that stupid, they could consider a stupid timeframe too, although I'd still bet on April 2017 given how far reaching the impacts would be (including for gov't departments).

I can't find anything else on it. I wonder if it's just poor reporting on the T&S consultation? Like you say, it's pretty vague and sparse on details.

I hope you're right. Nothing like a bit of cheer to jumpstart the weekend, eh?

[jamesbrown]

I can't find anything else on it. I wonder if it's just poor reporting on the T&S consultation? Like you say, it's pretty vague and sparse on details.

I hope you're right.

It's the sort of thing that would've been briefed and the reference to "a month" and some other details aren't likely to have been made up. That said, it could be terrible reporting/briefing (it is a complicated area afterall), although I doubt it.

[BolshieBastard]

Whichever way you look at it, contracting as we know it is ****ed. Its not a question of 'if,' it just a question of 'when.'

[Zero Liability]

It'd "raise" a purely speculative £400m and cost both businesses and the govt how much? Best to wait on a more reliable source, I guess.