GSK Crackdown

[Eirikur]

Does anyone know how HMRC actually got hold of the names of the contractors working at GSK?

[MLB]

Could it have been derived from an intermediaries report if the intermediary only supplies GSK?

[cojak]

Companies are legally obligated to provide the information if HMRC demand it.

[cosmic]

Does anyone know how HMRC actually got hold of the names of the contractors working at GSK?

They got a list of companies working on their behalf.

Not hard for them to check against companies house where you only have 1 person working who is the director. No need to chase GSK.

[SussexSeagull]

This combined with the uncertainty over Brexit is making for extremely worrying times.

As has been said above not being able to claim expenses is going to kill working away from home for most as it simply isn't worth it unless clients start paying expenses (which I very much doubt). I think a lot of Londoncentric people forget that some clients in more rural areas have to get contractors in from further afield.

Have long term contractors in the same place ruined it for the rest of us? Kind of. I know being in the same place for years doesn't necessarily mean you are inside IR35 but in reality you do eventually become part of the furniture.

Putting money aside it isn't for me or anyone else hear to judge others but contracting should be about new challenges, solving problems then moving on, not smiling sweetly and attending company meetings with the hope of getting an extension.

[jamesbrown]

Have long term contractors in the same place ruined it for the rest of us? Kind of.

Have 3-6mo BAU BoS contractors sunk contracting? You could make that case too (I wouldn't, personally, because I think they're filling a legitimate gap in the market).

In reality, it isn't worth looking any further than the perceived tax gap. I say perceived, because perception matters more than reality in making that calculation. But once you have tens to hundreds of thousands of workers on the "wrong" side of that tax gap, you get to very large numbers quickly, and that's never going to last. It's simply a revenue issue (again, notwithstanding the superficial nature of the way that is calculated), which is why it has persisted across political parties and parliaments.

[Hobosapien]

Have 3-6mo BAU BoS contractors sunk contracting? You could make that case too (I wouldn't, personally, because I think they're filling a legitimate gap in the market).

In reality, it isn't worth looking any further than the perceived tax gap. I say perceived, because perception matters more than reality in making that calculation. But once you have tens to hundreds of thousands of workers on the "wrong" side of that tax gap, you get to very large numbers quickly, and that's never going to last. It's simply a revenue issue (again, notwithstanding the superficial nature of the way that is calculated), which is why it has persisted across political parties and parliaments.

Yes, too many clients reliant on 'short term' contractors to fill BAU positions because they either don't offer the right pay to attract skilled workers, or offer a suitable training route to get school/uni leavers and keep them, or lazy/poor short-term vision management that want results immediately.

Those filling the BAU gap used to be the traditional agency supplied temps, but when clients look to that for more specialised roles then we end up where we are with a lot of grey area and a government wanting to claw back some of the tax they perceived as lost, due to the popularity of companies playing to the rules to get an edge when their management isn't capable or enabled to work to a better long term strategy.

As always, when the rules prove too popular that tax revenues fall (see petrol -> diesel car take-up as an example) the government has to change the rules in what feels a cynical way. We're seeing that with the evolution of IR35 that has been around for a long time now.

[Hobosapien]

Does anyone know how HMRC actually got hold of the names of the contractors working at GSK?

The content of the actual letter, as linked to on CUK homepage is interesting as it starts with:

We’re writing to you because you told us that you were self-employed when you worked for, and received payments through, your own company. We call this type of company a ‘Personal Service Company’ (PSC).

How did all those contractors tell HMRC they were self-employed via a PSC if not by ticking that optional 'The Ltd is a PSC' box on the self-assessment?

I never ticked it as it was optional and the definition of a PSC is arbitrary and not set in law.

[JohntheBike]

The content of the actual letter, as linked to on CUK homepage is interesting as it starts with:



How did all those contractors tell HMRC they were self-employed via a PSC if not by ticking that optional 'The Ltd is a PSC' box on the self-assessment?

I never ticked it as it was optional and the definition of a PSC is arbitrary and not set in law.

I never ticked it as it was optional and the definition of a PSC is arbitrary and not set in law

that would always have been my point. The approach would have been, " if you can define what a PSC is in law, then I'll determine if MyCo qualifies"

[BrilloPad]

that would always have been my point. The approach would have been, " if you can define what a PSC is in law, then I'll determine if MyCo qualifies"

A PSC is whatever HMRC determines a PSC is....