So I think its finally dawned on IPSE's management

[Cirrus]

One of two things need to happen...

1) IPSE wake up, smell the coffee, and get working on something.
2) IPSE fold up shop and put up a "Closed, sorry we let you all down" notice


On the basis that they were formed to fight IR35, so far, I would rate them a solid 0.2 out of ten for effort on the latest IR35 changes.

I've always thought that with regard to IR35 per se, they have hit a solid 0.0 out of 10.

PCG effectively was "The State doesn't want contractors to have access to tax incentives intended for entrepreneurs so they have said we mustn't do it. Well let's see if they can make that stick in court!!!".

PCG never did anything apart from show contractors they could slip under IR35 with gay abandon (plus some very cheap insurance).

I have berated them more than once over all this pretence about win-win. They go on about employee benefits and who should pay for that, and about the advantage of the flexible economy but refused to ever accept that HMRC couldn't care less about these issues. Flexible Economy - great! Employee Benefits - discuss that with your client if that's what you want. All we want is our tax. Stop asking us to subsidise your lifestyle. If you want lots of money in your pocket then charge more.

They persisted with this talking shop approach and predictably it has achieved diddley squat.

The problem now is their original beat-them-in-court approach won't work.

It's difficult to see where they go from here.

[bobspud]

Unless the contractors were foolish enough to opt out...

IPSE the organisation that keeps on giving by creating things that don't do what they thought they would due to other people being sneakier....

Businesses in their own right can opt out but temp workers can't. The legislation is set up specifically to stop agencies strong arming the rights off the weak. As soon as we are dragged inside the client sets the tone of their own demise

[eek]

I've always thought that with regard to IR35 per se, they have hit a solid 0.0 out of 10.

PCG effectively was "The State doesn't want contractors to have access to tax incentives intended for entrepreneurs so they have said we mustn't do it. Well let's see if they can make that stick in court!!!".

PCG never did anything apart from show contractors they could slip under IR35 with gay abandon (plus some very cheap insurance).

I have berated them more than once over all this pretence about win-win. They go on about employee benefits and who should pay for that, and about the advantage of the flexible economy but refused to ever accept that HMRC couldn't care less about these issues. Flexible Economy - great! Employee Benefits - discuss that with your client if that's what you want. All we want is our tax. Stop asking us to subsidise your lifestyle. If you want lots of money in your pocket then charge more.

They persisted with this talking shop approach and predictably it has achieved diddley squat.

The problem now is their original beat-them-in-court approach won't work.

It's difficult to see where they go from here.

There are still court cases to be won.... I'm not sure IPSE is the people I would want on my side though..

[eek]

Businesses in their own right can opt out but temp workers can't. The legislation is set up specifically to stop agencies strong arming the rights off the weak. As soon as we are dragged inside the client sets the tone of their own demise

Being opted out is another complexity though and we want and need the easiest simplest cases being argued first...

[teapot418]

The whole thing is a mess. I'm not sure there's a 'one size fits all' approach - it's really down to the individual who may want to push the employee rights route, or may want to challenge the IR35 decision, or more likely, if they have the option, work in the private sector instead.

Interesting times...

[original PM]

No I think you are confusing not being in a pointless club with not getting involved...

Both Eek and myself have senior access to our relevant departments and as such we have both wandered into the right offices and given them the ammunition they needed to understand that dragging every contractor straight in side IR35 will be a very bad idea for them.

I believe that information has not fallen on deaf ears. The question that is left to be answered is why a bored half drunk architect could find the flaw in the governments plan while our formal representatives seemed to fail miserably

You make the assumption that people running IPSE have any interest except lining their own pockets.

Which they don't.

[missinggreenfields]

Both Eek and myself have senior access to our relevant departments and as such we have both wandered into the right offices and given them the ammunition they needed to understand that dragging every contractor straight in side IR35 will be a very bad idea for them.

In which case, I apologise for my earlier post. I have a lot of time and respect for those that attempt to help the rest of us - whether they succeed or not. I wrongly interpreted certain posts as "I could have helped but didn't", which was why I was upset. If that isn't the case, then I'm happy to be corrected and apologise.

[eek]

In which case, I apologise for my earlier post. I have a lot of time and respect for those that attempt to help the rest of us - whether they succeed or not. I wrongly interpreted certain posts as "I could have helped but didn't", which was why I was upset. If that isn't the case, then I'm happy to be corrected and apologise.

Which part of me quietly doing things as I did with T&S (for which someone is taking more glory than they deserve) did not grasp.

Remember that carefully phrased FOI request from which I got documentary proof that the tax lose figure had no basis. You know the one, the one I gave and highlighted explicitly to 2 IPSE board members to use, only for me to discover that IPSE didn't use it.

My only crime here is to have continually stated that this battle was going to be lost. Sorry but I told you that back in June, yesterday just confirmed what was blatantly obvious then.

IPSE now needs to decide very quickly what it needs and wants to do going forward. But asking people to be a focus group on something that clearly falls within GAAR isn't really the first thing I was hoping to see from IPSE.

[eek]

The whole thing is a mess. I'm not sure there's a 'one size fits all' approach - it's really down to the individual who may want to push the employee rights route, or may want to challenge the IR35 decision, or more likely, if they have the option, work in the private sector instead.

Interesting times...

THe options are:-

1. Push for employee rights
2. Challenge the IR35 decision (although your client is stating you are subject to SDC and the test within the public sector is SDC not the 3 tests of SDC, MOO and substitution). I've spent 5 months trying to work out how you challenge an IR35 decision still can't see a reason or means to do so.
3. Move to the private sector - only to see this arrive there in April 2019.

So there really is one option on that list that will do anything. Which is why both bobspud and myself are saying fight for employee rights.

[original PM]

THe options are:-

1. Push for employee rights
2. Challenge the IR35 decision (although your client is stating you are subject to SDC and the test within the public sector is SDC not the 3 tests of SDC, MOO and substitution). I've spent 5 months trying to work out how you challenge an IR35 decision still can't see a reason or means to do so.
3. Move to the private sector - only to see this arrive there in April 2019.

So there really is one option on that list that will do anything. Which is why both bobspud and myself are saying fight for employee rights.

Is the goal, by pushing for employee rights, to make businesses stand up for you as they do not want contractors having employee rights (in fact it makes contractors a lot less useful to a company if they get employee rights?)??