Dragonfly

[malvolio]

I agree with TLG, the PCG should attack this ruling with the fury of God's own thunder (and I'll be posting in the PCG fora later). The agency and client should be sued for employment rights and every benefit that goes with it.

Great attention should be drawn to the fact that HMRC looked at the upper contract too and every Press outlet in the land should be educated as to why the two, seperate, commercial contracts shouldn't be used to penalise an legitimate business based on a gray, wooly law that has no solid basis and changes at the whim of whomever attempts to interpret it on behalf of HMRC.

Too late. Already being discussed. However PCG can't take any legal action, that has to come from Jon Bessel. Let's hope he's up for a fight.

 

[The Lone Gunman]

Isn't it losing revenue overall?

On another note, which is the insurance that will pay your tax and penalties as well as cover the cost of the investigation?

I think tulipe99 FO99 does that. There may be others.

 

[Incognito]

Too late. Already being discussed. However PCG can't take any legal action, that has to come from Jon Bessel. Let's hope he's up for a fight.

I'm sure he can take the agency/AA for misrepresentation. He's taken that role on the wording of his contract, they then stand up in court and say "well we don't really mean it"

 

[gingerjedi]

If the difference of being IR35 caught or not wasn’t so vast the taxman wouldn’t have so much trouble getting contractors to cough up, I know I’d probably trade a little tax for peace of mind and at the same time the government would almost certainly see an increase in revenue.

A smallish tax break for flexibility is surely favourable to the sledge hammer they use to penalise us now… or is that too sensible?

I wouldn’t mind so much if I had any of the benefits employment brings.

 

[The Lone Gunman]

Too late. Already being discussed. However PCG can't take any legal action, that has to come from Jon Bessel. Let's hope he's up for a fight.

If he is losing everything then he has nothing more to lose as long as he can get funding.

You know my position on this and I would hope the PCG advises and supports him in going for employee rights and suing the client and agent for misrepresentation and fraud.

 

[Epiphone]

Too late. Already being discussed. However PCG can't take any legal action, that has to come from Jon Bessel. Let's hope he's up for a fight.

Same here. And if he is let's hope the PCG are up for a serious fight too. Whack the membership fees up a few quid to cover the funds if needs be.

 

[Lewis]

Isn't it losing revenue overall?

On another note, which is the insurance that will pay your tax and penalties as well as cover the cost of the investigation?

QDOS TLC35

 

[expat]

The Government & its agencies are trying to promote business in the UK, aren't they?

Yes, they are. But they see us as costs to business, not assets.

I wonder how they expect people to pay up in these circumstances? Could they make you sell your house etc to pay for it or would they give you time to pay it off?

You have to remember that they see you as being about the level of Gary Glitter, or at least the Great Train Robbers. Don't expect sympathy after they've gotcha.

 

[Lockhouse]

QDOS TLC35

Abbey Tax also do this - I pay a supplement to Abbey Tax above and beyond my PCG Plus membership to insure against tax loss - you have to be a PCG Plus member to do this though.

 

[Lewis]

If he is losing everything ...

I wonder what funds are in his company, there has always been talk of not being able to pass on the tax bill to the individual unless they deliberately acted as if they were outside IR35 but knew they were in. If they company has no funds and Jon has a contract review showing he has reason to believe he was outside IR35 then does that mean the bill can't be passed to him?