GAME OVER

[Groundhogdays]

Game On

If we can only get a couple of thousand to sign a petition , what chance of getting enough for a demo march to HoC or HMRC HQ....?????

It is curious as to why the public petition hasn't clocked up more support yet. Could be a number of reasons, but I think the biggest is still the disbelief factor - "This retrospection will never come near me..."

One has to ask, if 100K+ people and their families (or even 40K+ and families) are affected, then where are they? Still don't know the Horseman's on the way?

If there is little resistance for this, then retrospection will almost certainly be applied on previous Public and Private Sector contracts in respect of IR35 - should all of the loan scheme users then sign the IR35 retrospection petitions that will spring up? We probably will anyway, because you know - its HMRC and f**k 'em! But a little more solidarity now would be helpful and might even head off the need for those petitions. Let us take the punches - but support us.

[webberg]

It is curious as to why the public petition hasn't clocked up more support yet. Could be a number of reasons, but I think the biggest is still the disbelief factor - "This retrospection will never come near me..."

One has to ask, if 100K+ people and their families (or even 40K+ and families) are affected, then where are they? Still don't know the Horseman's on the way?

If there is little resistance for this, then retrospection will almost certainly be applied on previous Public and Private Sector contracts in respect of IR35 - should all of the loan scheme users then sign the IR35 retrospection petitions that will spring up? We probably will anyway, because you know - its HMRC and f**k 'em! But a little more solidarity now would be helpful and might even head off the need for those petitions. Let us take the punches - but support us.

How many readers of this forum (and others) are still contracting and how many of them have gone to their:

end client
agency
recruiter
contracting accountant
umbrella
IPSE (& other trade bodies)

And asked - nay TOLD - them to advertise this and get involved?

Why is this being driven by individuals and independent advisers and not by those who make a living from contractors?
Why is that group so passive?

[Calmbeforethestorm]

How many readers of this forum (and others) are still contracting and how many of them have gone to their:

end client
agency
recruiter
contracting accountant
umbrella
IPSE (& other trade bodies)

And asked - nay TOLD - them to advertise this and get involved?



Why is this being driven by individuals and independent advisers and not by those who make a living from contractors?
Why is that group so passive?

Probably ignorance, but it may be they are scared HMRC will turn to the employer ( as in an Rangers) and they dont want to have to pay for ER's nic, holiday pay, redundancy,etcetc etc

[Groundhogdays]

Come on Guys! Er, Guys...?

Probably ignorance, but it may be they are scared HMRC will turn to the employer ( as in an Rangers) and they dont want to have to pay for ER's nic, holiday pay, redundancy,etcetc etc

What a catalyst you turned out to be,
Loaded the guns,
Then you run off home for your tea

(From David Cameron's favourite song, until someone explained the lyrics...)

No offence to posters here.

[dmuk]

I'm not sure the Rangers case is a good example.

Wasn't the court ruling in favour of HMRC and meant HMRC could then pursue Rangers (the employer) for money? Furthermore it strengthened the courts view against tax avoidance and disguised income (individuals)? Worse Rangers was liquidated so the administrator was left to settle.

The upside to the above is that scheme promoters and employers should be accountable. It still leaves individuals exposed. Ie HMRC scalping providers AND individuals.

[Groundhogdays]

Depowered Rangers

I'm not sure the Rangers case is a good example.

Wasn't the court ruling in favour of HMRC and meant HMRC could then pursue Rangers (the employer) for money? Furthermore it strengthened the courts view against tax avoidance and disguised income (individuals)? Worse Rangers was liquidated so the administrator was left to settle.

The upside to the above is that scheme promoters and employers should be accountable. It still leaves individuals exposed. Ie HMRC scalping providers AND individuals.

The Rangers case - curious how HMRC, having lost with one argument at First Tier Tribunal, were allowed to pitch a different argument at the Supreme Court. That wouldn't have allowed Rangers representatives much time or chance to even form their counter-argument. I'm surprised that tactic was allowed. Would a company or individual contractor be allowed the same leeway?

All academic now, I'm sure...

[webberg]

The Rangers case - curious how HMRC, having lost with one argument at First Tier Tribunal, were allowed to pitch a different argument at the Supreme Court. That wouldn't have allowed Rangers representatives much time or chance to even form their counter-argument. I'm surprised that tactic was allowed. Would a company or individual contractor be allowed the same leeway?

All academic now, I'm sure...

That's not quite true.

HMRC introduced the new argument (if it looks like salary, it must be salary) at Court of Sessions, i.e. our Appeal Court level.

It was unusual and is something that if the taxpayer tried would have been strongly resisted, but it happened.

The Supreme Court looked (briefly) at whether that was a problem, but decided that the taxpayer was not put at a disadvantage.

Also, Rangers was in liquidation but still had several tens of millions of cash. HMRC may not get all of that but a lot.

[webberg]

Probably ignorance, but it may be they are scared HMRC will turn to the employer ( as in an Rangers) and they dont want to have to pay for ER's nic, holiday pay, redundancy,etcetc etc

I'd have to disagree.

It's not ignorance. These are multi million pound businesses and it is inconceivable that they are not aware of the situation.

The sales type on the phone to you may not be au fait with the details, but in the organisation there are lots of people already planning for post enquiry, post IR35 reform, worlds.

EVERYBODY still using one of these entities should refuse to do so, unless they get some news out to the entire client list.

At the moment, they are being let off the hook and in the future will continue to grow rich on your efforts. I think a little payback is not out of order.

[Groundhogdays]

I'd have to disagree.

It's not ignorance. These are multi million pound businesses and it is inconceivable that they are not aware of the situation.

The sales type on the phone to you may not be au fait with the details, but in the organisation there are lots of people already planning for post enquiry, post IR35 reform, worlds.

EVERYBODY still using one of these entities should refuse to do so, unless they get some news out to the entire client list.

At the moment, they are being let off the hook and in the future will continue to grow rich on your efforts. I think a little payback is not out of order.

I think it's all part of HMRC strategy. Not going after promoters will both turn them into pariahs eventually (with those already stung) and avoid costly deferred litigation with multiple entities in different legal circumstances. While keeping shtum and allowing their continued operations will generate more tax revenue from those least able to push back. Tories were happy to green light it...

[webberg]

It doesn't matter if you think it's HMRC conspiracy or not.

The point is, get out there and DEMAND that these outfits do something.

I guarantee that they all have contingency plans anyway for the new world of contracting so they have nothing to lose.

You do.