Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[Old Hack]

And they have been.

and you'd be happy if they applied the rules retrospectively with the upcoming threat of new legislation?

That's the question.

[porrker]

And they have been.

Most certainly not! The finance act explicitly gives exclusions that allow these schemes to operate legally.

[Old Hack]

Yes. If you're operating as a business for a year. Why does it makes a difference if you're doing it for 3 years?

HMRC might be more likely to take a look as it gets longer, but it doesn't change the nature of the relationship just because it's lasted a long time.

Well, in the first instance, it does make a difference in the public sector if you are there longer than 6 months. In the second, I'd wager nearly every contract that went on for 3 years would fall under IR35. Thirdly, you're not allowed travel expenses past 2 years, iirc, in contract, another IR35 marker...

[Robinho]

There are 3 primary indicators for IR35. Duration is not one of them.

[speling bee]

[QUOTE=Old Hack;1649785]Well, in the first instance, it does make a difference in the public sector if you are there longer than 6 months.QUOTE]

It doesn't make a legal difference, in this instance. It just has a procurement and therefore contractual implication.

[speling bee]

and you'd be happy if they applied the rules retrospectively with the upcoming threat of new legislation?

That's the question.

Certainly not. But then I'm not paying 3 to 5% tax via a dodgy offshore outfit.

[Old Hack]

Certainly not. But then I'm not paying 3 to 5% tax via a dodgy offshore outfit.

I have just stated, in your position, if they stated any off payroll IT worker is subject to IR35, would you be happy, you're saying no.

So what you're saying, is precisely what they were saying, and you lambasted them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[speling bee]

I have just stated, in your position, if they stated any off payroll IT worker is subject to IR35, would you be happy, you're saying no.

So what you're saying, is precisely what they were saying, and you lambasted them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't expect them to be happy about it.

[Old Hack]

I don't expect them to be happy about it.

But you were happy to have a bit of a goad.

Hmmm.

[Old Hack]

[QUOTE=speling bee;1649789]

Well, in the first instance, it does make a difference in the public sector if you are there longer than 6 months.QUOTE]

It doesn't make a legal difference, in this instance. It just has a procurement and therefore contractual implication.

Er, no, they are bringing in legislation in the new year, currently in consultation; I am in discussions directly with the treasury about it, funny enough...