Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[northernladuk]

How many investigations relate to current contract and how many relate to previous contracts? I would wager that a significantly higher percentage of investigations relate to previous work than current.

I'm not sure what you are getting at there but I didn't make my point very well. I mean taking membership with IPSE (not sure why FB is calling it PCG???) now just because you are worried about reto taxation should not mean they will defend you for the previous contracts. That is madness. You should only get support for a contract which falls inside the period you were an IPSE member surely.

[pjt]

I'd say no. It's about the contract and working conditions. A middleman is largely irrelevant to the that. The partial win with JLJ contract was direct.

Let me be clear here. My query is more around eeks comments on how HMRC will generate the list. He seems to be suggesting this will come from the agency reporting data combined with PS IR35 inside determinations. If direct I'm assuming their would be no agency reporting data therefore direct bods wouldn't be on the list.

[Semtex]

eek, with this in mind do you think us who work direct may be less at risk from this retro tax grab?

I don't think your question has been answered as it seems to have strayed into IR35 legislation as opposed to the actual question of will being direct reduce the identification aspect pointed out by eek (i.e same agency reporting via NI numbers).

My response is I am not sure if there is a requirement on the company you provide your services to, to report your NI details? If so then I assume similar if not then Eek statement on reporting may not affect you.

One ultimately for Eek to answer.

[northernladuk]

Let me be clear here. My query is more around eeks comments on how HMRC will generate the list. He seems to be suggesting this will come from the agency reporting data combined with PS IR35 inside determinations. If direct I'm assuming their would be no agency reporting data therefore direct bods wouldn't be on the list.

Ah well we are guessing at guess about hypothetical situations that won't make much difference either way they. If we don't know if they actually will then I'm certain try to guess how they might excute something they might not do is ...well... guesswork.

[northernladuk]

I don't think your question has been answered as it seems to have strayed into IR35 legislation as opposed to the actual question of will being direct reduce the identification aspect pointed out by eek (i.e same agency reporting via NI numbers).

My response is I am not sure if there is a requirement on the company you provide your services to, to report your NI details? If so then I assume similar if not then Eek statement on reporting may not affect you.

Hmm I am not sure about that. It hasn't strayed in to legislation at all. It's about your employment status. Contract and working conditions. I can't see an agent in the loop makes any difference. HMRC will have the same data for everyone regardless of who is in what loop.

One ultimately for Eek to answer.

Where I do believe Eek is doing a fab job on all this and definitely is all over much of this I don't think saying Eek is the only one that can answer a question about engagement types is not really the case.

[jamesbrown]

My response is I am not sure if there is a requirement on the company you provide your services to, to report your NI details? If so then I assume similar if not then Eek statement on reporting may not affect you.

One ultimately for Eek to answer.

The intermediaries reporting requirement doesn't include PSCs working directly for an end client. It does provide a wealth of information and connections, so it could be used in targeting PSCs that supply through other intermediaries. Of course, it doesn't change anything about IR35 status, but that isn't the point (of a campaign designed to have uniformed PSCs concede or make mistakes early in the process). If you're reading this thread, you're already way ahead of the game. Your only, potentially fatal, mistake would be to stay in a contract that changes status in April without a change in WP that justified the change in status.

[northernladuk]

The intermediaries reporting requirement doesn't include PSCs working directly for an end client. It does provide a wealth of information and connections, so it could be used in targeting PSCs that supply through other intermediaries. Of course, it doesn't change anything about IR35 status, but that isn't the point (of a campaign designed to have uniformed PSCs concede or make mistakes early in the process). If you're reading this thread, you're already way ahead of the game. Your only, potentially fatal, mistake would be to stay in a contract that changes status in April without a change in WP that justified the change in status.

We need a closed thread sticky with this as the title at the top of each forum for awhile IMO.

[rob s]

We need a closed thread sticky with this as the title at the top of each forum for awhile IMO.

Meaning, presumably, that if you decided to stay, you'd want them to change the contract/agree a new title and SDC and MOO etc to, without question, put you 'inside ir35' to help defend your status up to the 5th?

[RonBW]

One ultimately for Eek to answer.

Or for his friend in the pub to answer

[northernladuk]

Meaning, presumably, that if you decided to stay, you'd want them to change the contract/agree a new title and SDC and MOO etc to, without question, put you 'inside ir35' to help defend your status up to the 5th?

No. He specifically stated a change in working conditions. All the above (except maybe SDC) are contractual so pretty easy to expose as a sham. If you turn up and carry the same work out in more or less the same way the nothing changes.

People have to stop thinking minor manipulation of their situation will work to get around anything. It's about you in that seat. If you are still in it after the date you are done.