Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[seeourbee]

Part of HO is, I meant HMRC

[londonlad]

Sweetheart deals only apply to those who can afford the smartest lawyers. Think Google/Starbucks/Amazon.

I understand, but that will be the only win-win situation for all parties involved.

[SueEllen]

Oh yes, and why do you think there's a sudden glut of contracts for HMRC??

Some of them have been going around since last summer.

It seems as soon as people work out what is going on they leave citing "location" as a problem.

[rocktronAMP]

I suppose there may be contractors on HMRC sites as well. Aren't they on higher risk of being investigated as HMRC very well know about contract and working practices?

Yep.

I know one acquaintance has said that he is leaving for the private sector project in the next few weeks long before the payment deadline 6th April 2017.

My source said that the inside situation is crazy, dazed & confused between HMRC and some of the other government departments.

[RonBW]

In my opinion the cheaper, effective and efficient way for HMRC is to provide amnesty to all contractor by not investigating retrospective. They could ask the contractor to pay the levy of say £2000 to avail this option. Even if say 50000 contractor accept this option, it will net them very good sum without going through the hassle of investigation, tribunal etc....

1) £2000 is nowhere near what they could get if they fight and win.

2) Define retrospective. All investigations are retrospective, and HMRC are not going to sacrifice ongoing investigations which could do nicely.

Reading the FAQ about tax investigation on the IPSE website: "In 2011 three cases were taken to tribunal after 5, 6 & 8 years respectively and were successfully defended and resulted in crushing victories for the IPSE members. The average cost of dealing with all three cases from start to finish exceeded £19,000 and the tax liabilities ranged from £25,000 to over £60,000 – there was a lot at stake for all three members who were all very glad of IPSE’s support!"

So HMRC have a track record of suddenly going back a long way, and are fighting for much more than £2000 in each case. What does appear to be criminal is that (I think) HMRC don't get hit with having to pay your fees if they lose, which makes the whole process even more unfair.

Don't get me wrong - I think that there are many people who would jump at the chance to pay £2k to avoid an investigation into past practices. I just don't see HMRC going for it, and certainly not at that level.

[QCApproved]

I agree Ron. What's perhaps more likely is that an estimate will be applied and may even be demanded up front and it will be your responsibility to go through a process to prove why it shouldn't apply to you
Nothing is off the table these days

[SueEllen]

1) £2000 is nowhere near what they could get if they fight and win.

2) Define retrospective. All investigations are retrospective, and HMRC are not going to sacrifice ongoing investigations which could do nicely.

Reading the FAQ about tax investigation on the IPSE website: "In 2011 three cases were taken to tribunal after 5, 6 & 8 years respectively and were successfully defended and resulted in crushing victories for the IPSE members. The average cost of dealing with all three cases from start to finish exceeded £19,000 and the tax liabilities ranged from £25,000 to over £60,000 – there was a lot at stake for all three members who were all very glad of IPSE’s support!"

So HMRC have a track record of suddenly going back a long way, and are fighting for much more than £2000 in each case. What does appear to be criminal is that (I think) HMRC don't get hit with having to pay your fees if they lose, which makes the whole process even more unfair.

Don't get me wrong - I think that there are many people who would jump at the chance to pay £2k to avoid an investigation into past practices. I just don't see HMRC going for it, and certainly not at that level.

You make the most hard hitting headlines by attacking those who have been at a client for years.

[NHS1979]

You make the most hard hitting headlines by attacking those who have been at a client for years.

Which makes sense - but can't understand going back yonks for people who have done dozens of 6-9 month contracts.

Sudden panic today that the tool will come out 'on 25th Feb' and be run on every interim, with results communicating to HMRC, even if you've resigned and leaving end of March...

[breaktwister]

Put your client/agent on notice that you prohibit under the Data Protection Act, their sharing any information about you personally or details of your company with any other body including government agencies without your express permission?

Let them know that the new tool is advisory, not mandatory, and that they may be held liable for any loss incurred due to entering your details into the tool prior to 6th April 2017 (by that time you wont be on their books anyway).

Just a suggestion.

[northernladuk]

You are starting to sound like a right pillock now. They are required by law to supply certain details to HMRC
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...n-intermediary