The Official Budget 2016 thread

[jamesbrown]

But if there is contractor's company -> agency -> consultancy/supplier -> government department then only if the government department is told you aren't consultancy/supplier staff can they do anything.

Also since lots of companies provide services to government departments off-site, so it becomes ridiculous.

No, it won't work like that. They will notify their (immediate) supplier whether the rules apply (based on new rules whereby the details of the post will be considered). This will need to be propagated up through the contracting chain, which is common practice when the end client needs to ensure everyone in the chain is bound by particular terms.

[dogzilla]

Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.

All this means is that contracts have to be re-written so that liability shifts to the 3rd party, eg. agencies or consultancy companies who public bodies engage with.

That won't change anything because nobody gives a tulip. They just want their resource on site. As long as the boxes get ticked nobody will bat an eyelid.

I imagine the agencies will get creative and obfuscate the whole process so that the Gov can tick the box and the contractor can get paid.

[DaveB]

Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.

All this means is that contracts have to be re-written so that liability shifts to the 3rd party, eg. agencies or consultancy companies who public bodies engage with.

That won't solve the problem because nobody gives a tulip. They just want their resource on site. As long as the boxes get ticked nobody will bat an eyelid.

Just as it was with the BET's a couple of years ago.

[jamesbrown]

Not necessarily, since Accenture will be charging you out to the end client for a damn site more than they are paying you. The contract with the client, if it is a genuine B2B consultancy deal between Accidenture and the client wont specify individuals, only services.

I think the notes allude to how this will work in practice. The public body will notify their supplier whether the rules apply, and this will be propagated upwards.

[d000hg]

LISA Questions

1)So you get an annual bonus according to the BBC which suggest the government gives you money each year rather than nominally granting you the bonus but you don't receive it until you want to use it. But then they talk about not getting the bonus if you withdraw the money other for specific 'life events' Does that mean you pay the bonus back for previous years?

2)If this is a more general thing than the home-ISA, can non-first-time-buyers use it to buy a house now as well? Or for us would it ONLY be a pension alternative?

[jamesbrown]

Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.

It comes down to whether it's PR or they mean it. If they mean it, they can deliver it quite easily without changing IR35, because they can dictate contractual terms in the public sector. Equally, they will torpedoe a lot of public sector projects as contractors avoid such work.

[Andy2]

So now the govt. wants to pay big consultancies say £1000/day for a bod , instead of paying directly to a PSC contractor £500/day
Wow what a genius. Does he know we have a budget deficit.

[NickFitz]

LISA Questions

1)So you get an annual bonus according to the BBC which suggest the government gives you money each year rather than nominally granting you the bonus but you don't receive it until you want to use it. But then they talk about not getting the bonus if you withdraw the money other for specific 'life events' Does that mean you pay the bonus back for previous years?

From https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._explained.pdf (PDF):

you can withdraw the money at any time before you turn 60, but you will lose the government bonus (and any interest or growth on this). You will also have to pay a 5% charge

(Illiterate Designer lack of capitals at start and punctuation at end reproduced from the original.)

So if you need your money for some reason, they take 5% off the top, because we're all dipping into your wallet together

[ChimpMaster]

So in a nutshell, not a lot to worry about that we didn't know of already?

Unless:
-you're a public sector contractor.
- or you're planning to go down the MVL route, which still needs 'clarification' from Gideon.

[WordIsBond]

Nice little change (for the government). There is no provision in those notes for using pension payments to reduce the deemed payment tax liability, as there currently is under IR35.

So if you get stuck inside IR35 under these rules, you won't be making company pension contributions, will you?