Reply from MP about IR35 Reforms

[GJABS]

I agree that they should be paying broadly the same amount of tax but it should be about cost to employ somebody - the employee costs the employer way more than the 100k often quoted in this argument - pensions and employers NI are on top of their salary, the contractor has to make these payments from within their 100k. The chances are that the employee will also be earning for 52 weeks of the year with a payoff if made redundant. The contractor can be got rid off at short, often zero notice. so there is a fair chance that the contractor won't hit the 100k.

If a contractor is on 100k, what would be the cost to employ a person with a salary of 100k?

Taking the devil's advocate side for a minute, could it not be said that all this shows is that the employee is simply worth more to the company than the contractor, and this is the case even before any consideration of taxes, because the comparison of before-tax earnings is much more for the employee in this instance.

[mattfx]

Totally agree - I did represent that in my initial email to her and it has clearly been casually glossed over.

[TheFaQQer]

I do not have the funds to defend that.

Do you not have membership of a trade association which would help fight an IR35 case?

[Acme Thunderer]

For a role paying a permie 100K would would any of you accept £500 pd for it?

[vetran]

For a role paying a permie 100K would would any of you accept £500 pd for it?

no but I am sure an international resourcing company with H1B's could supply someone who had seen the box in Currys for that. Of course MPs are very popular as non executive directors.

[BrilloPad]

Do you not have membership of a trade association which would help fight an IR35 case?

If only one existed!

[fatboyslim]

The current IR35 seems fair, if you are a hidden employee, the taxman should treat you as employee.
24 month is pretty good criteria, in fact quite generous.

[BrilloPad]

The current IR35 seems fair, if you are a hidden employee, the taxman should treat you as employee.
24 month is pretty good criteria, in fact quite generous.

So you think if a contract last longer than 24 months you are IR35 caught?



Please post this in general. The regulars could do with some fresh meat.....

[fatboyslim]

So you think if a contract last longer than 24 months you are IR35 caught?



Please post this in general. The regulars could do with some fresh meat.....

yes I do... he he...
any favourite thread where I can post it, to see some firework?

[BrilloPad]

yes I do... he he...
any favourite thread where I can post it, to see some firework?

So do don't think that IR35 status is determined by the contract?

And that travelling expenses is determined by the 24 month ruke?

Which is by intention - so if you get a 1 year extension after 18 months then you can no longer claim.

I hope I have got that right or NLUK will have kittens....