So I think its finally dawned on IPSE's management

[Whorty]

He's a nice simple test that could be applied ... is the contractor cost CAPEX or OPEX? If the latter, then it's probably a support/BAU role therefore really a deemed employee (UBER drivers would all be OPEX for example, as would a support desk bod). CAPEX, a project, defined period required, defined skillset that the company doesn't have today and once the project is complete will not need in the future.

Seems pretty easy to me

Would catch all those journos and presenters too, but leave true project contractors to get on with running their businesses and client projects

[Major Hassle]

He's a nice simple test that could be applied ... is the contractor cost CAPEX or OPEX? If the latter, then it's probably a support/BAU role therefore really a deemed employee (UBER drivers would all be OPEX for example, as would a support desk bod). CAPEX, a project, defined period required, defined skillset that the company doesn't have today and once the project is complete will not need in the future.

Seems pretty easy to me

Would catch all those journos and presenters too, but leave true project contractors to get on with running their businesses and client projects

Nah.. Software Capitalisation rules are quite strict, the majority of projects don't qualify IME

[Whorty]

Nah.. Software Capitalisation rules are quite strict, the majority of projects don't qualify IME

But I think that's why it's a fair test. You would no longer be testing individual contractors or workers, you would be using tried and robust rules to test what they are delivering. If it can be capitalised then it's a project, and as a project you are likely to need to bring on board short term specialised skills. None capitalised then the workers are part of your business and fall into IR35. Might not be 100% ideal, but it's an easy test. It's there today. It can be audited by independent 3rd party auditors. It removes those 'bums on seats' contractors we all complain about, it firmly sorts out the likes of Uber, but places bone-fide speciliased limited skills outside IR35. It's better than the direction we're going, which is all become permies

[Major Hassle]

But I think that's why it's a fair test. You would no longer be testing individual contractors or workers, you would be using tried and robust rules to test what they are delivering. If it can be capitalised then it's a project, and as a project you are likely to need to bring on board short term specialised skills. None capitalised then the workers are part of your business and fall into IR35. Might not be 100% ideal, but it's an easy test. It's there today. It can be audited by independent 3rd party auditors. It removes those 'bums on seats' contractors we all complain about, it firmly sorts out the likes of Uber, but places bone-fide speciliased limited skills outside IR35. It's better than the direction we're going, which is all become permies

Qualifying for Software Cap is not the definition of a project.....

[MPwannadecentincome]

And if that's the IPSE's approach every role from 2019 will have the following characteristics :-

1. The role will be inside IR35 (safest bet for the end client - no real cost to them).
2. The agency will insist you use an umbrella.
3. Contracting has died.

You need to work out how to ensure point 1 isn't the default option - and the only people who seem to have thought about this have all reached the same opinion....

Which is the reason why I believe we need to fight for employment rights if forced inside IR35. I did assume your and others in IPSE could work out why....

Isn't there another option to take a FTC and get the employee rights?

[eek]

Isn't there another option to take a FTC and get the employee rights?

Why offer an FTC when there is no need to do that. We need to make the options FTC or outside ir35 with the client very definitely arguing yep he is outside, here is the evidence to confirm that he is

[Fred Bloggs]

Same here I will look to QDOS to cover me for IR35 until then and won't be renewing my IPSE membership when it comes up for renewal (just have to make sure the shysters haven't got me on an auto renewal where they'll help themselves to my money upon renewal to make it 'easier' for me...)

It's worth mailing them. I got a reply confirming my membership wouldn't be renewed when it runs out. I've kept the email just in case.

[Fred Bloggs]

So this is what the chief exec of ipse has said today
"We should also temper our expectations, and those of our members, whilst we'll endeavour to make our case to Parliament and elsewhere. It may be that the public sector decision cannot be rolled back and thus the next real battle will be about preventing this disastrous proposal spreading to the private sector."


Says it all really. I won't be renewing my membership

It would be fascinating to hear the plan for achieving that. Seeing as the plan has already failed WRT to the public sector, one is left wondering why, if they now have a different plan (i.e. - one that works) why they didn't already implement it?

[eek]

It would be fascinating to hear the plan for achieving that. Seeing as the plan has already failed WRT to the public sector, one is left wondering why, if they now have a different plan (i.e. - one that works) why they didn't already implement it?

I think that is because they are in total shock and can't comprehend whats happened.

But I actually think the problem is really far simpler:

IPSE seem to think that because we are freelance we are somehow special, that means they create things like the FLC to solve a perceived problem the way they want to and then as those with a broader viewpoint ask how will you stop it being abused, claim that it won't be.

My viewpoint is different. Contractors are a very annoying subsection of people in a sea of similar looking people that most people regard as either being abused or abusing the tax system (and many are doing both). As such you can't just go here's a solution for us - don't worry it won't be abused, you need to come up with solutions that resolve some / all of the abuse issues and hope that you remain standing at the end.

Oh and don't claim that the tax you are collecting on behalf of HMRC is tax you have directly earnt. Inaccurate statements like that within submissions usually result in the rest of the submission being treated as at best suspect...

Which is why my advice is:-

Work out what we want to be in April 2019. And from there work backwards as to how you can ensure that is possible for that position to still exist.

And the one thing I know is that we are way, way further down in working out where we need to be in April 2019 and the steps that need to be done to get there than IPSE is. IPSE is right that they need time to think, sadly they've already had 5 months (really 18 months) and wasted all of it.

[teapot418]

And the one thing I know is that we are way, way further down in working out where we need to be in April 2019 and the steps that need to be done to get there than IPSE is.

Who's "we" in this context? And where do you think we (contractors) need to be and how are we going to get there? I thought your plan was to quit contracting?