Dragonfly

[The Lone Gunman]

You are in a very very small minority. Most builders will just send in their sub without even bothering to tell you, let alone ask.

This is the card that they have which makes them unquestionably self employed. I'm surprised that they even bother to take on business that doesn't let them play it, there wasn't a shortage of work for them to do.

tim

Buuultulip. Are you telling me that if a complete stranger turned up at your door and said he was the builders labourer you would let him in unquestioned? I think not.
I use local artisans with a reputation, I am not paying a premium rate for them to send the apprentice. If I have to I will use a one man outfit to make sure.
I am not talking about big building firms with lots of employees I am talking like for like one man outfits or small firms.

Besides, that is just one example, there are loads of others. Actors, footballers, lawyers(not chambers) etc are all employed on a personal service basis.

Further, my business is far too complex to send a sub (on many occasions). Any plumber can see what needs doing, as can any electrician or brickie. Assuming you are a programmer, could you just turn up here and start fixing the bugs in the helicopter nav system I am presently working on?

Sorry, I will stop ranting now. I have been thinking a lot about this decision and it worries me.

 

[The Lone Gunman]

Hahaha! The lad has a near 100k tax bill to find. Wonder if he took out a CTD? Unless Im mistaken, the only appeal would be to the HoL. Can you see PCGfunding that for him too?

I disagree about the decision being 'entirely' consistent with case law. Case law has actually built up a number of sound defences for IR35. And that's before one even considers the inconsistency between SC decision.

After having slagged off the MP boys, sounds to me like your running scared because Hector is now gunning for you too.

Be afraid, be VERY afraid! You're next, pal.

The next step is to recover the costs from the client and/or agent who was responsible for the fraudulent contract they entered into. Hopefully one of them will have broken a law which puts them in prison that way we stand a chance of getting proper business relationships when required or the right rate for an IR35 caught job.
The situation at the moment allows clients and agents to use us as permatemps AND sign business to business contracts even though they are lies.

 

[GreenerGrass]

Just reading the latest blurb on the news page, the fact he'd been there so long his earlier contracts were "pre-IR35 resistant" (and then later ones changed) clearly didn't help.

While the result isn't good, I don't like all this lilly-livered talk of rolling over, giving up and going permie etc. Don't let the b*stards win.

And only 2 years until another government gets in.

As for the recovery of the 100k, I wonder if he has the money in his business account or not....there was another thread where THEPUMA was saying the revenue normally only recovered funds when the money was available in company accounts - hard as it was to believe. I had assumed you'd be automatically made bankrupt or be forced to remortgage/sell your house, whatever.

Depending on the above, it would certainly make me question whether to ever leave much reserve money in the company account, and instead take the max out every month or quarter.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

I have been thinking a lot about this decision and it worries me.

Yes, me too. I have almost no spare cash in the business bank and I have swapped jobs every 3 to 6 months. However under the current climate the gig I have is a good bet for 2 to 3 years work. What a mess we have here

 

[Jubber]

The next step is to recover the costs from the client and/or agent who was responsible for the fraudulent contract they entered into. Hopefully one of them will have broken a law which puts them in prison that way we stand a chance of getting proper business relationships when required or the right rate for an IR35 caught job.
The situation at the moment allows clients and agents to use us as permatemps AND sign business to business contracts even though they are lies.

Here here !

Either that or some kind of chain law that makes the client, or better still, the agent liable. That way we would get cast iron contracts and working practises.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

I had assumed you'd be automatically made bankrupt or be forced to remortgage/sell your house, whatever.

Me too, it seems too easy to just drain the cash and fold.

 

[The Lone Gunman]

Me too, it seems too easy to just drain the cash and fold.

I had always assumed it was a personal debt. That all the monies (less 5%) earned by your company would be regarded as your personal income. Once you have accounted for legitimate expenses you would be taxed at the relevant rate on the rest and it would be a personal tax bill not a business tax bill.

If it is as easy as you say then what are we all worried about? New company every contract empty it and close it. Nothing to chase.

 

[malvolio]

Hahaha! The lad has a near 100k tax bill to find. Wonder if he took out a CTD? Unless Im mistaken, the only appeal would be to the HoL. Can you see PCGfunding that for him too?

I disagree about the decision being 'entirely' consistent with case law. Case law has actually built up a number of sound defences for IR35. And that's before one even considers the inconsistency between SC decision.

After having slagged off the MP boys, sounds to me like your running scared because Hector is now gunning for you too.

Be afraid, be VERY afraid! You're next, pal.

We're not afraid, we are very angry. And you're not listening; there is a huge gap between 1.2 million small businesses being smacked for taxes they don't owe and a bunch of heroes wilfuly ignoring the rules and pretending to be some kind of special case (And if you go back through what I said in the MTM threads, you will find - mirable dictu - that I have been right so far, but let's not debate that in this thread)

If he wants to take as far as the HoL, then PCG would probably pitch in an help him do so. The ruling just handed down, though, gives no point for appeal; the commissioner applied case law correctly; a failure to do so is the only grounds for appeal in this kind of case.

However, the commisioner, in making his original judgement, has wilfully disregarded some areas of case law such as RoS being a non-employee inidcator and has applied novel interpretations in others, such as you're under D&C if your work is subject to QA assessment; given the guy is a tester, it would be amazing if there wasn't some kind of parallel QA, after all.

The case has not apparently changed case law but it has let the door open for unfair or unrealsitic assessments to be applied to that case law. That is what has to be challenged.

Also, if Jon is up for it, he could now justifiably sue for employement rights - not least insisting that the agency as his nominal employer is liable for the £99k tax bill. He won't win, but it might wake up Middle England

 

[ratewhore]

Yes, me too. I have almost no spare cash in the business bank and I have swapped jobs every 3 to 6 months. However under the current climate the gig I have is a good bet for 2 to 3 years work. What a mess we have here

I think people have to stop and think and not get carried away. As for you FB, you've had many short term contracts which, if investigated and you lost, would not amount to much overall. Your current gig may possibly be cause for concern but all you need to do is keep a %age aside, if you can.

It seems that Dragonfly did not have a good set of contracts so he was halfway up a certain creek without a paddle straight away. What there will certainly be is new guidance from the likes of QDOS, B&C etc for us to follow so let's just wait and see what happens...

 

[The Lone Gunman]

I think people have to stop and think and not get carried away. As for you FB, you've had many short term contracts which, if investigated and you lost, would not amount to much overall. Your current gig may possibly be cause for concern but all you need to do is keep a %age aside, if you can.

It seems that Dragonfly did not have a good set of contracts so he was halfway up a certain creek without a paddle straight away. What there will certainly be is new guidance from the likes of QDOS, B&C etc for us to follow so let's just wait and see what happens...

The length and number of contracts should not matter.
I work on complex systems which often require long term contracts. I would also like preferred supplier status so I don't have to keep hunting contracts.
This guy was really good at what he did the client wanted him. In any other business this is a good thing.