November Budget - Stop Public sector IR35 rules coming into the Private sector

[BoredBloke]

Regarding the part about not being able to work in a London bank when based elsewhere, I think that is a valid point. We are supposed to be a flexible resource and the removal of our ability to expense remote temporary assignments removes our flexibility - something that's not removed for the big consultancies/body shops when they post their staff. Where I live roles are pretty scarce and over the past 17 years I've pretty much worked away from home. Without being able to offset the travel and accommodation costs then remote roles will be out of the question. They say that employees can't expense commuting costs, but how many of them have to stay in a London hotel 4 nights of the week?

[BoredBloke]

It was the exact opposite agencies were requiring people to be self employed to avoid responsibility for tax

I thought it was they insisted on the use of limited companies instead of self employed but happy to be corrected as I was only 8 when it happened. My dad was a contractor and I vaguely remember him setting up his limited company back then.

Either way, the industry changed pretty much overnight due to somebody in the chain not wanting to expose themselves to a contractors tax liability.

[Guesstimator]

Aside from this and lobbying directly, there isn’t much that can be done, fullstop. I think it helps insofar as they sense a degree of opposition from the number of letters received, particularly letters that don’t follow the lobbying format of an interest group. The Faqqer provided an analogy earlier in this thread, I think. Any savvy politician will think twice if there’s an unusually high degree of opposition to something, but the Tories have shown themselves to be pretty tin eared, and the Chancellor, in particular.

I realise I'm being defeatist but after a brief conversation, of two communications each way, describing the apples to oranges comparison of PAYE vs Single Expert Ltd it was like beating my head against a brick wall: "levelling the playing field"

When you explain our situation to anyone including MPs you need to think of sectors e.g. engineering where there are very well known skills shortages and where making it difficult to get contractors will directly impact their own lives e.g. trains, electricity. It also helps if that sector complaining about not getting skilled people was recently in the media somewhere particularly a newspaper.

Going on about how you won't be able to work in a bank in London due to living in Edinburgh simply won't cut it with most MPs.

Totally agree, even so it just doesn't seem to register. Explaining that the tax received from Me Ltd is substantially more than Me employee cuts no ice either: "But but but, that's not the point" I've heard a few times.

[SueEllen]

Rant written to Tory MP.

Added in a bit towards the end about not being worth it to vote Tory due to their pretence of being pro-business and pro-flexible workforce. I didn't actually vote for the guy but he has a small majority so needed to drum it in that he could lose his seat if this goes through.

I've written to him before when they were removing expenses from the public sector, and he responds quickly.

[mudskipper]

Cautiously apprehensive?

Come and try it you ****ers! (But I have had a bottle of wine)

[jamesbrown]

My representations have been conveyed to the Chief Exec of HMRC - not sure how I feel about that!

Cautiously apprehensive?

[mudskipper]

When you get the standard response, the follow up is to say thank you for their reply but you would like them to raise your concerns directly with the Chancellor.

They then pass that onto HMT who send the potted reply, but at least it means that Treasury have to do something to respond.

My representations have been conveyed to the Chief Exec of HMRC - not sure how I feel about that!

[cojak]

Seems it's coming...but somehow don't see any urgency from firms on this as they will have to bear extra costs..transferring contractors to ftc, paying off agents, managing disruption...

Sigh...

My guess is that this is going to happen irrespective of any letter writing and then rolled back 1 -2 years after implementation due to the chaos brought into the private sector.

Those contractors who can survive those months will be the ones best placed to benefit from the roll-back.

[TheFaQQer]

Yep. Same, potted response (though perhaps a bit more misguidedly pointed from Damian Hinds) from mine two years ago.

TBH, I don't think writing to MP's is the way to tackle this at all, they simply do not grasp the nuances.

When you get the standard response, the follow up is to say thank you for their reply but you would like them to raise your concerns directly with the Chancellor.

They then pass that onto HMT who send the potted reply, but at least it means that Treasury have to do something to respond.

[bobspud]

I think Bobspud's comment was illustrative.

I think the larger firms in a number of verticals (e.g. fintech, pharma) would go down the option b) route. Not for being altruistic towards contractors of course. But in the rush pre-Brexit to retain quality flexible resources, they'll put more effort into demonstrating that the work on the ground delivered by contractors sits outside IR35. So, proper MOO, no SDC, project=based deliverables in contracts etc.

There's not too much extra work in making this happen - it's what should happen now. Contracts and working practices just need tightening up. And as for the risk of getting an outside decision wrong, I think the larger private sector firms will have more appetite to take this on than the public bodies have done.

This is exactly the point I was making.

If you add Uber’s latest defeat to the mix there won’t be a business in the U.K. that would choose put a legitimate contractor inside ir35. Only the civil service are that stupid. But I’m sure it won’t take long for their errors to dawn on them