Chancellor vows to ban 'one man firms'

[doodab]

Indeed, very sloppy reporting even though they do mention savings on NICs which is true.

Well, they do mention savings on NICs but they don't mention that the vast majority of the saving is for the company and not the individual working for them, at least in the simplistic 100k salary vs 100k to a company argument, or that there is legislation designed to deal with this already.

This might actually result in a big attack on one man Ltds in new budget - I reckon they planned it for some time and recent paper activity around this area was induced to help introduce new legislation.

It might do, as it does rather make the case that IR35 is bollocks, but it has to be sensible or big business will go spare when they can't get any contractors in.

[doodab]

Actually, looking at that table, which is utterly misleading, I think there is a case for contacting the press complaints commission.

The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

Press Complaints Commission >> Editors' Code of Practice >> Editors' Code

Can anyone be arsed?

[KimberleyChris]

"Of course, it would never dawn on them to instead allow PAYE workers to also claim the cost of getting to and from work against tax, would it?

You mean like in Switzerland?"


Indeed. Your home has a postcode and your workplace has a postcode. I thought all these IT boffins on here would have a system ready to go by now :-)

[Waldorf]

It seems as though the Chancellor wants to ban the use of limited companies being used within the public sector, no reason that this will be extended more generally.

I agree that the reporting is sloppy and makes no true comparison.

[xoggoth]

Indeed to last.

PS I fully support contractors being forced to go PAYE now I'm retired SNEEEEER!
PPS I don't really

[scooterscot]

Thread misses the point - tax avoidance is legal. This on the other hand is pure and simple tax evasion. If you only have one employer and you're there year in year out I'll help the chancellor throw the book. Custodial sentences for the top civil servants.

‘We are rooting out the inappropriate use of private service companies for people who are effectively working as employees. We are going to put a stop to it.
‘It can be traced back to abuses that grew up under Labour, but it is up to us to clean it up.’

Recall being at a client site once and an umbrella company arranges a talk-day sell thing on the client site. I attend for a laugh, people sat round the table talking about paid holiday, sick pay, how many dividends, how often they could extract.

Never witnessed such collective blatant abuse of the law.

[hyperD]

As someone mentioned earlier here today, it's funny how this has been passed to the MSM now. It's almost as though there's some sort of agenda being played here...

Well there's one thing that's guaranteed: whatever the outcome, it's bound to be a government clusterfark.

Bring it on.

[Kanye]

Thread misses the point - tax avoidance is legal. This on the other hand is pure and simple tax evasion. If you only have one employer and you're there year in year out I'll help the chancellor throw the book. Custodial sentences for the top civil servants.

The 'year in, year out' part i.e. duration of service is not really relevant from an IR35 perspective.

It's the working practises that matter, and if the working practises of these guys do turn out to be 'disguised employment' then processes are already in place for investigating that and clawing the tax back.

[hyperD]

The 'year in, year out' part i.e. duration of service is not really relevant from an IR35 perspective.

It's the working practises that matter, and if the working practises of these guys do turn out to be 'disguised employment' then processes are already in place for investigating that and clawing the tax back.

Well, you're right in that they are simply disguised employees and should be caught under IR35 et al.

But because these w@nkers are high profile (in the government/MSM sphere) you can be guaranteed that the D-notices and injunctions will fly, just as the adulterous Andrew Marr (married to Grauniad employee troglodyte sourpuss and bitter Jackie Ashley) applied for one a few years ago to stop the MSM reporting that he got Independent reporter Alice Miles up the duff.

Although despite paying paternity for so many years, after a DNA test he was not the father. But still an adulterer.

The jugged eared, Liebour sympathising cockhound.

[Churchill]

How does "Chas Roy-Chowdhury" get paid?

Just asking, like.