Calling all IPSE Members

[Old Greg]

That's a whole other discussion.

Given that both groups were looking to avoid IR35, clearly there were very few PCG members using the schemes: from memory it was double figures only. When HMRC started that particular war, PCG weren't really involved since, obviously, their first concern was for their own members. They thought it better to leave the complex issues around the schemes to far more qualified people like webberg and support where necessary. Which, as far as I know from the outside, is what they've been doing.

I also wonder if the schemes issue was actually a distraction from their own focussed negotiations and lobbying around the roles of contractors in the economy, so keeping out of the way was a sensible move.

If PCG and IPSE, kept out of the way, then that seems sensible enough.

[mudskipper]

I've not been following the UK contractor tax scene very closely recently. Did IPSE take a position in the dodgy scheme folks? If so, hopefully they made sure to sharply differentiate them from honest contractors using the approximate approach of 11k p.a. salary, divis and CT, with or without pension.

If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

[GreenMirror]

If PCG and IPSE, kept out of the way, then that seems sensible enough.

PCG are superb! IPSE are splitters.....

[GreenMirror]

If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

The IPSE stance on HMRC and schemes is much appreciated.

HMRC believe that "honest contractor" is an oxymoron and that everyone should pay whatever tax they decide. Since IR35 PCG had the first fight against HMRC with arctic. DTA had the second. LCAG have the third. HMRC are gearing up for the next round "the future of contracting" and the more we stand against the common enemy the better we will be. Not that I can ever see the various factions working together.

Of course, OldGreg is an oxymoron without the oxy. Agrees with everything assguru says. Claims to have lost a contract being undercut by a contractor using a scheme. Despite clearly being not up to the job. A honest, proper contractor gets the gig then negotiates on price. The contractor industry must be rid of these "johnny come latelys".

Still, OG must have some good blackmail piccies of admin to get away with the CUK posts that no-one else would get away with without a ban.....

[Old Greg]

The IPSE stance on HMRC and schemes is much appreciated.

HMRC believe that "honest contractor" is an oxymoron and that everyone should pay whatever tax they decide. Since IR35 PCG had the first fight against HMRC with arctic. DTA had the second. LCAG have the third. HMRC are gearing up for the next round "the future of contracting" and the more we stand against the common enemy the better we will be. Not that I can ever see the various factions working together.

Of course, OldGreg is an oxymoron without the oxy. Agrees with everything assguru says. Claims to have lost a contract being undercut by a contractor using a scheme. Despite clearly being not up to the job. A honest, proper contractor gets the gig then negotiates on price. The contractor industry must be rid of these "johnny come latelys".

Still, OG must have some good blackmail piccies of admin to get away with the CUK posts that no-one else would get away with without a ban.....

You think you're angry with me, but really you're angry with yourself. But you shouldn't be. It's not your fault that you're a cretin. Blame your genetics or your upbringing. Blame the education system, but move on and find peace.

[Old Greg]

If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

This is problematic. iPSE should have thrown the dodgy scheme users under the bus (or ignored it) and concentrated on supporting the honest contractor model.

[GreenMirror]

This is problematic. iPSE should have thrown the dodgy scheme users under the bus (or ignored it) and concentrated on supporting the honest contractor model.

Perhaps they were worried that HMRC would define "the future of contracting" to be "the past of contracting" using their time machine.

[Old Greg]

Perhaps they were worried that HMRC would define "the future of contracting" to be "the past of contracting" using their time machine.

Maybe. But it muddles the message that one man band Ltd contracting is legitimate, for IPSE to pitch in on behalf of the dodgy scheme spivs.

[malvolio]

Maybe. But it muddles the message that one man band Ltd contracting is legitimate, for IPSE to pitch in on behalf of the dodgy scheme spivs.

Do you actually read what has been said or do you simply have problems with English?

IPSE haven't done anything for or against the scheme users, They have, obviously, supported those opposing the HMRC approach, which is fine, and as MS said their advice has been to stay away from schemes for many years. They have not, as far as I know, expressed any opinion on the scheme users themselves, other than noting there were less than 100 out of their 20-odd thousand members involved.

Also - and again something that is routinely ignored - is that the people mainly caught up in now this are not the usual CUK customers but an awful lot of agency-led casual workers, especially in medicine and teaching, who do not even think of themselves as contractors in the first place and have been given absolutely appalling advice when the PS IR35 changes were dumped on them. Plus, of course, the media where the aim was for the employers to save lots of money by outsourcing their own employees.

Which of those groups would have joined IPSE do you suppose? Perhaps a lot more, arguably, if there wasn't a constant refrain on here and elsewhere about how pointless IPSE are and how they are only in it for the money - unlike all those other commercial IR35-related companies - and how the only real contractors are in engineering and IT.

[Old Greg]

If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

Do you actually read what has been said or do you simply have problems with English?

IPSE haven't done anything for or against the scheme users, They have, obviously, supported those opposing the HMRC approach,

Do you actually read what you have said or do you simply have problems with English?

Can you not see how supporting those who oppose the HMRC approach is doing something for the scheme users? Now you may think that is OK and you're entitled to your view, but sort out your basic logic before flying off at others.