Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[eek]

Back to the OP.

If someone has had their current contract and working practices reviewed as "outside" have provided that evidence to their client and had it accepted, I would think they are in a great position to challenge the client's (or tool's) decision if they are deemed to be "inside" after April 2016.

That wasn't the original question. If it was we wouldn't have been sidetracked into schemes.

[eek]

It has everything to do with contractors. Yes, like it or not, even "scheme" contractors are your fellow professionals. And believe it or not - some did their due diligence.

But thanks for your comment nonetheless, because you are precisely showcasing the "us & them" mentality that I was talking about.



This was not meant as an invitation but, as I wrote, as an illustration. Think I've made my point, so we don't particularly need to discuss further, and you won't have to bite your tongue.

To be blunt I don't think they did. My due diligence back in 2001 said run a mile, those things require £100,000 minimum to fight and nothing's changed there.

And it's not a them and us mentality. It's the use of contractor in a post about tax schemes that I object to. Member would be a far more accurate word to use than contractor as only some contractors were members of such schemes and IPSE argue that it's neither a large or significant proportion of all their target members

[DotasScandal]

Scheme salesman have 2 things on their side
1) the fear story of ir35
2) the greed of the contractor
I would also add that until very recently HMRC didn't help by not having a don't be so fluffing stupid page on their website. Thankfully and only 15 years too late that admission has been fixed

Ah, you forgot the utmost important point:

3/ the complicity of HMRC themselves

Please understand that their part goes much, much further than "not having a page on their website".
IR35 sparkled the whole "Contractor Scheme" boom of the early 00's, there is no doubt about that. But HMRC could have killed it in the egg if they had wanted.

Instead, they FUELED the industry, causing it to prosper probably beyond the promoters' wildest expectations.
How? simply by supporting, through their silence and inaction, the promoters' narrative. That makes them complicit whether they'll admit it or not.
Someone more conspiracy minded might say that they set up tens of thousands of poor slobs in order to reap them later (with interest!).
We'll just say that thay have been a bunch of incompetent, lazy bastards that sat on their hands for 10+ years, and are now panicking at the idea that someone might take notice. Hence the need for all the retro and unorthodox measures to make sure individuals do not or cannot pursue their day in court, and that facts are never ever examined by tax tribunals.

[DotasScandal]

IPSE argue that it's neither a large or significant proportion of all their target members

How would IPSE know? I don't remember being asked when I joined.Most IPSE members are silent / passive to start with, they're not going to volunteer the info.

Personally I think it's an excuse by IPSE to avoid addressing the subject.

[neil99]

That wasn't the original question. If it was we wouldn't have been sidetracked into schemes.

Actually it was the original question. Just put a different way.

[MrMarkyMark]

To be blunt I don't think they did. My due diligence back in 2001 said run a mile, those things require £100,000 minimum to fight and nothing's changed there.

And it's not a them and us mentality. It's the use of contractor in a post about tax schemes that I object to. Member would be a far more accurate word to use than contractor as only some contractors were members of such schemes and IPSE argue that it's neither a large or significant proportion of all their target members

Agreed, so did mine.
If we are talking about an them and us mentality,lots of people I knew at the time, said I was a mug for not participating.

Anyway the post seems to have gone well South, in any case.

[cojak]

Mods are to enforce forum rules, not judge the decency of posts (or lacktherof).
But given that kicking fellow contractors (preferably when down) is CUK'ers favourite game, not sure why I bother...

We do both actually. And since this thread is in 'The Future of Contracting' and not 'HMRC Scheme Enquiries' the usual Professional house rules apply.

[eek]

Actually it was the original question. Just put a different way.

No it wasn't there is a large difference between this rant

Hi All

I'm telling people at work they'd better leave their current contracts by April 2017 or face being billed for PAYE from the date they started. For some people this would be as far back as late 2013.

I'm assuming the revenue will investigate anyone who goes from outside to inside IR35 working on the same contract or similar. It might be a nasty surprise from people.

and this far more sane question without the hyperbola

Hi All

Are people planning to leave their current contracts by April 2017 ?

What's the chances of being billed for PAYE from the date they started.

I'm assuming the revenue will investigate anyone who goes from outside to inside IR35 working on the same contract or similar ?

and I do call out posts like the original version because it only comes from a posters with (shall we say) a certain history...

[neil99]

No comment

[cojak]

Just delete the thread please. And then remove my account. Thanks.

I'm afraid not. I would suggest not using your account or stay within HMRC Scheme Enquiries.