Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[teapot418]

So.. Some chump working on PS without a clue how to be a contractor who, some think were potential 'thrown under the bus' fodder continues with their head in the sand putting themselves at high risk of getting caught just get IPSE+ and gets defended.

Why does that slightly annoy me.

They've got to take their head out the sand long enough to realise they need to get cover.

It will benefit us all - cases fought and won (by the contractor), which is much more likely to happen if the contractor has professional representation, undermine the whole premise, and make rollout to the private sector more difficult to justify.

[northernladuk]

They've got to take their head out the sand long enough to realise they need to get cover.

It will benefit us all - cases fought and won (by the contractor), which is much more likely to happen if the contractor has professional representation, undermine the whole premise, and make rollout to the private sector more difficult to justify.

And the one idiot they pick (and there are many 100's) manages to lose?

I certainly don't want the entire future of contracting sitting on the shoulders of some disguised permie that hasn't a clue.

[bobspud]

WE may be missing a trick here. consider...

The client says you are IR35 fodder, and (their agency) taxes you accordingly. You however are sure you are not, from your knowledge of the rules and in defiance of the client's view and the tools assessment (which is almost certainly wrong in law anyway). So you take the client to the EAT and claim employment rights, since the client is saying you are under their full direction and control and providing a personal service, ergo you have all the hallmarks of an employee so why not any of the rights. The client don't want you to win that one, so they are now forced to prove that you are outside IR35.

Would that work...?

As for IPSE cover, that applies unconditionally to all members and all contracts. They will not cover you for a pre-existing investigation, obviously (although they did once take on such a case in the early days to prove a point of law...) and their insurers will not defend a case which is guaranteed inside IR35 (although that hasn't happened yet to my knowledge). So IPSE membership or some equal level of PEI would appear to be even more of a no brainer than it is now.

At last the penny has dropped

Yes that defence is exactly where we should be and what I was suggesting with EEK several months ago:

As a freelancer for over a decade I want to continue be a freelancer BUT at the moment there are too many government organisations thinking that its going to be painless to say **** it they can be classified as caught without even reading the contracts that they entered into or taking advice from a third party.

So the only thing left to do is to use their own force and incompetence to prove that they have indeed turned into the very type employer that IR35 set out to stop abusing the system and as a result you have been denied rights.
At that point we can start looking at recovering lots of free money just like PPI

[SueEllen]

At last the penny has dropped

Yes that defence is exactly where we should be and what I was suggesting with EEK several months ago:

As a freelancer for over a decade I want to continue be a freelancer BUT at the moment there are too many government organisations thinking that its going to be painless to say **** it they can be classified as caught without even reading the contracts that they entered into or taking advice from a third party.

So the only thing left to do is to use their own force and incompetence to prove that they have indeed turned into the very type employer that IR35 set out to stop abusing the system and as a result you have been denied rights.
At that point we can start looking at recovering lots of free money just like PPI

Eek, myself and a few others have been openly discussing this on another thread a couple of months ago.

This is one reason why the last time that stupid petition reared it's head I finally snapped and pointed out the real issue.

[pjt]

At last the penny has dropped

Yes that defence is exactly where we should be and what I was suggesting with EEK several months ago:

As a freelancer for over a decade I want to continue be a freelancer BUT at the moment there are too many government organisations thinking that its going to be painless to say **** it they can be classified as caught without even reading the contracts that they entered into or taking advice from a third party.

So the only thing left to do is to use their own force and incompetence to prove that they have indeed turned into the very type employer that IR35 set out to stop abusing the system and as a result you have been denied rights.
At that point we can start looking at recovering lots of free money just like PPI

I see where your going with this. I fear this may make matters worse longer term though. If clients think taking on contractors is going to come with all the baggage of an employee the prospect of them taking on contractors is going to reduce. This surely has the potential to make matters even worse? Clients will end up force us all umbrella or FTC neither is that appealing to me (though being force indie IR35 is also grim).

[MrMarkyMark]

At last the penny has dropped

Yes that defence is exactly where we should be and what I was suggesting with EEK several months ago:

As a freelancer for over a decade I want to continue be a freelancer BUT at the moment there are too many government organisations thinking that its going to be painless to say **** it they can be classified as caught without even reading the contracts that they entered into or taking advice from a third party.

So the only thing left to do is to use their own force and incompetence to prove that they have indeed turned into the very type employer that IR35 set out to stop abusing the system and as a result you have been denied rights.
At that point we can start looking at recovering lots of free money just like PPI

+1 we were all discussing this, at length, quite a while ago...........in fact I'm sure Mal must have read the thread

[bobspud]

+1 we were all discussing this, at length, quite a while ago...........in fact I'm sure Mal must have read the thread

At the end of the day all we are trying to do is make sure that the clients understand that we like to be freelance.

I dont want paid holidays anymore than I want to be granted an obligation to be employed forever.

I want the freedom to be free and for the client to understand why they shouldn't try and chain me to an employment contract. I also want them to understand the flexibility that my attitude brings them : )

Why as that been so hard for over 20k contractors in government to articulate?

[RonBW]

And the one idiot they pick (and there are many 100's) manages to lose?

I certainly don't want the entire future of contracting sitting on the shoulders of some disguised permie that hasn't a clue.

A moment ago the person was sharp enough to sort out professional cover; now they are an idiot who is going to lose - make your mind up

As I said earlier, though, the entire future of contracting doesn't hinge on one case. HMRC cannot bunch everyone together and say "you are all caught because this one person that we beat is caught" - if they did that then they would have already forced everyone inside on the basis of any case that they have won. They need to try every case on the individual merits, or they need to scare people into paying money not due, or they need to change the law. At the moment they have not changed the law significantly (the tests remain the same as they always have done) but they are scaring people already.

The idea that HMRC can or will find one case and change everything is ridiculous.

[Andy Hallett]

Interesting article, which raises a valid point about blanket 'inside' determinations

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ir35-...?trk=prof-post

[malvolio]

+1 we were all discussing this, at length, quite a while ago...........in fact I'm sure Mal must have read the thread

Nope, can't say I did. You forget two things: none of this affects me at all, and I'm only really tracking the final form of the proposed legislation and consultations.

The nuclear option was a bad idea 20 years ago up to very recently, since it would have been counter-productive. The world has seen a step change making it a viable defence.

However we must be clear what we are after here. It's not necessarily a reduction in taxation for genuine freelances. It's the ability to continue to sell our services in a clear and unambiguous way, free of all the tulip we are currently having to deal with. If the end solution is to trade off some taxation against a high degree of certainty and the right to be truly independent then fine. In fact we're already some way towards that with the dividend taxation changes.

We don't want employment rights, nor do we want to force our clients into offering them, via FTC, umbrella or any other variation. But if that is the only stick we have to wave, then we must wave it.