Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[Semtex]

A little bit of me wanted to stay and work with my agent on this to see if we could work a win out. It is only a tiny little bit though. Instead I left and haven't looked back since

we are all so happy for you. now where were we

[eek]

I fear you've fallen for HMRC's rhetoric.

If this abuse is so rampant, why did the a review find that there was 90% compliance in public sector departments?

Why aren't HMRC winning IR35 cases left, right and centre?

A link to that review?

And I'm not falling for their rhetoric - they win points on SDC and lose on the other employment grounds (substitution and mutual obligation).

As for why HMRC aren't winning cases that's because a tribunal looks at what may be an utterly unusable substitution and mutual obligation clauses and says yep outside which is why the game is changing...

[teapot418]

A link to that review?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/s...ctor-published

95%, my mistake.

[malvolio]

And what exactly is the purpose of this IR35 change but to ensure that the Public Sector actually determines what they are asking to be done and that the appropriate methods are used to ensure the people performing said tasks are then employed by an appropriate means.

The difference here is that IPSE seems to believe that its perfectly acceptable to have people everything from first line support upwards working via a limited company alongside others in the payroll of that department and both HMG and HMRC have decided that the abuse has grown so rampant that it needs to be killed off.

Here we go again...

IPSE have never said that if you are caught by IR35 you should not be paying the taxes: all they've done over the years is attempt to clarify where the boundaries lie between employee and external worker inside or outside IR35. Continually dragging them in as part of the problem is simply nonsense.

The abuse is primarily by clients at the lower end of the pay scale spectrum trying to offload irritating overheads like NICs and employment rights, and at the higher end - including a slot of senior civil servants - by trying to use the system to pay their people more money at someone else's cost. Genuine freelances are not abusing anything, no matter what role they are fulfilling.

Perhaps if you lift your eyes up a little and look at the wider picture rather than the limited (and highly badly managed) IT contract market, you may understand where this has all come from and why it is such a bloody mess.

[eek]

Here we go again...

IPSE have never said that if you are caught by IR35 you should not be paying the taxes: all they've done over the years is attempt to clarify where the boundaries lie between employee and external worker inside or outside IR35. Continually dragging them in as part of the problem is simply nonsense.

The abuse is primarily by clients at the lower end of the pay scale spectrum trying to offload irritating overheads like NICs and employment rights, and at the higher end - including a slot of senior civil servants - by trying to use the system to pay their people more money at someone else's cost. Genuine freelances are not abusing anything, no matter what role they are fulfilling.

Perhaps if you lift your eyes up a little and look at the wider picture rather than the limited (and highly badly managed) IT contract market, you may understand where this has all come from and why it is such a bloody mess.

IPSE allows anyone to join who wants a bit of protection into their tax affairs. That by definition means they are likely to have a significant number of members who really should be employees of their client.

And that is where I'm going to leave it. IPSE as an idea is dead its business model destroyed by a structural market change. The funny bit is that very few understand the big picture and have grasped what has changed....

[RonBW]

IPSE allows anyone to join who wants a bit of protection into their tax affairs.

Reading their Articles of Association implies that is not correct.

[LondonManc]

I would imagine that moving to S3 from direct means that S3 can collaborate with the client and advise which roles should be inside and which should be outside. HMRC will need their pound of flesh, S3 will work with clients to advise on speciality of role, SDC decisions and other working practices to advise who to "sacrifice" and which roles must be kept outside to attract the correct talent.

I would be astounded if S3 don't have some sort of client guidelines to make it easier to both identify outside roles to clients and the behavioural differences that clients need to exhibit to inside and outside contractors. There will no doubt be assistance, too, in determining how to get a role outside IR35 if nobody is taking the inside role, such as getting a more senior/experienced contractor in who can simply be left to get on with the job and so on.

[malvolio]

Reading their Articles of Association implies that is not correct.

It's not. Ignore him. Apart from anything else, none of the tax protection organisations will defend a case that is clearly caught by IR35.

[eek]

It's not. Ignore him. Apart from anything else, none of the tax protection organisations will defend a case that is clearly caught by IR35.

I'll keep that. Come December I think a lot of IPSE members in the public sector are going to be very very disappointed. Either that or the other members are going to be asking why are they wasting money on cases like that...

[malvolio]

I'll keep that. Come December I think a lot of IPSE members in the public sector are going to be very very disappointed. Either that or the other members are going to be asking why are they wasting money on cases like that...

It's hardly news, it's been the case from day 1. Which you, as a fully engaged member, surely knew already.

But if it makes you happy, let's tell everyone who hasn't got PEI protection that they shouldn't bother. Would that help?