Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[eek]

IPSE do not regard you as anything in particular.

But if you will insist on spreading misinformation (e.g. your insistence that IPSE said there was no chance of retrospection - they categorically did not say that), and make continual posts with the sole purpose of informing everyone how great you are and how rubbish IPSE is, then it's difficult to see how your motives could be interpreted as anything other than troublemaking. Which is a shame, as we're all on the same side, or at least we should be.

To be blunt I really don't care anymore, I think IPSE are incompetent but thankfully they will be irrelevant to its public sector members by the end of Feb (bar protection for historic contracts - and there I'm hoping that protecting those caught as a contract rolled in April into IR35 doesn't bankrupt IPSE - for that is another part of HMRC's plans) and to everyone else by the end of this year - so it doesn't really matter - the market is changing..

How IPSE reacts to the big players changing the entire game is going to be fun to watch...

[SueEllen]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170118

The government is making small contractors pay more tax to cut corporation tax for bigger corporate entrepreneurs - the little people lose out again. Google, Amazo - See the governments reason for bumping up dividend tax as listed on a previous petition signed by 58,000 IT contractors.

Need 100,000 to be debated in Parliament
Got 15,913 (this petition got 116 signatures per day but has increased to around 1,000 signatures per day since people started sharing it)

WHAT TO DO - PLEASE
Sign petition, text, email and facebook it and ask anyone to share - they dont have to be a contractors - just eithe British or UK resident. We can achieve this target.

" The Government is committed to supporting entrepreneurs and a fair tax system. Dividend tax reform (THIS MEANS THE TAX INCREASE ON SMALL COMPANIES) allows further cuts in Corporation Tax and reduces the incentives for tax motivated incorporations.(IE BIG COMPANIES WHO CAN AFFORD IT PAY LESS WHILE WE PAY MORE)
Read the response in full https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106525
The Government is fully committed to supporting business and entrepreneurship. As set out at the Summer Budget 2015, the Government believes that one of the best ways to support growth and enterprise in the UK is through lower and more competitive Corporation Tax rates. WHICH MEANS MAKING THE LITTLE PEOPLE WITH SMALL INCOMES PAY FOR THE BIG COMPANIES

You can come on here using various usernames but you will get the same message every time.

Unless you frame a petition in the way that doesn't make contractors look like money grabbing tax avoiding scum and focus on the employment rights issues that these public sector bodies are deliberately avoiding, then you won't get many contractors signing and you won't get support from the media.

[eek]

You can come on here using various usernames but you will get the same message every time.

Unless you frame a petition in the way that doesn't make contractors look like money grabbing tax avoiding scum and focus on the employment rights issues that these public sector bodies are deliberately avoiding, then you won't get many contractors signing and you won't get support from the media.

+1 the original post was back in December at http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...ml#post2331184 when it had about 18 signatures.

As I said then http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...ml#post2331566 that petition is an embarrassment and undermines our arguments rather than helping anyone.

[psychocandy]

True but I will repeat again that that is not what I'm worried about. Come April there will be an easily identifiable list of contractors who have been deemed by their client to be inside ir35. Now it may just be me but I think any contractor on that list is going to have a very hard time arguing that the contract was not always inside.

I also suspect that when that list kicks off being investigated no other cases will be started until the scheme is repeated in the private sector. Which I suspect will be in April 2019.

Exactly. Can you imagine IPSE/QDOS/Abbey Taxes faces when they have to defend someone on that list? Not easy to defend IMHO.

[Quality]

Exactly. Can you imagine IPSE/QDOS/Abbey Taxes faces when they have to defend someone on that list? Not easy to defend IMHO.

Why would it not be easy to defend? I can demonstrate that I am outside IR35 through my working practices, but if a client decides to make a blanket decision that is eminently different to checking the status of each individual contractor where I concede there may be issues. I would be leaving because of the 20-25% rate decrease rather than the risk of retrospective checking if my client decides not to define my status as outside. I have skills that they do not have in the organization and am not under any S/D/C.

[pscont]

What do you think about this practical situation:
At the moment I work for PS body. Outside IR35, standard contract wording.
In reality what I do is delivering a specific models to be run is a software. No one else in the organization can do this except me.
I am not sure they will not just blanket everyone inside IR35 come April, but they need me for the model creation.

If they are open to find a solution for me to stay can I use the web site route to be outside? I.e. myco is contracted to deliver x number of models over a 6 months period. After each model delivered I get paid.

Is this going to work with a very specific contract wording and provided they want to risk it with me being outside?

[LondonManc]

I'm also not clear what they will do with the agencies these people currently work through, as they all have contractual clauses saying they can't switch to the end client's employment for 12 months from the end of the agency agreement.

Here's the interesting one that doesn't directly affect us - all agencies getting dumped would surely need some sort of compensation either on a case-by-case basis or a blanket figure for being dumped from the PSL if that's off the standard cycle of supplier renewals. Looks like Andy H will either be rubbing his hands or lubing up!

[eek]

Why would it not be easy to defend? I can demonstrate that I am outside IR35 through my working practices, but if a client decides to make a blanket decision that is eminently different to checking the status of each individual contractor where I concede there may be issues. I would be leaving because of the 20-25% rate decrease rather than the risk of retrospective checking if my client decides not to define my status as outside. I have skills that they do not have in the organization and am not under any S/D/C.

Just to be clear your rate hasn't decreased. It's just that your costs have significantly increased.

[LondonManc]

Just to be clear your rate hasn't decreased. It's just that your costs have significantly increased.

While not revenue that we should pay much attention to, what would happen with VAT if an inside contract is later deemed outside (or vice versa)?

[eek]

While not revenue that we should pay much attention to, what would happen with VAT if an inside contract is later deemed outside (or vice versa)?

I have the answer to that via S3 group who double checked my FAQ income example.

The company will receive VAT on the full invoice value. Looking back to my FAQ example of £1500 a week the VAT received by the company on behalf of HMRC is £300 regardless of the amount of tax deducted from the final payment.

Hence VAT is irrelevant (but hard to work out due to utter lack of documentation).