Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[Semtex]

Yes, the companies that back the Tories will have something to say about it, don't worry about that.

wont make a difference

[MrMarkyMark]

I agree actually, but I also think that they will try and bring this is into the Private Sector asap for balance.

I am hoping the silver lining for me (in 12 months time) will be working from home with a deliverables based contract.

Oh, I'm sure they will try. The issue will be when the Tories realise their business funding may be stopped, as LM alluded to earlier.

That's mainly how I work now, although the agency didn't like the fact I made them add a schedule.

[DotasScandal]

In any case if it is to happen, in the private sector so soon, why didn't they announce both at the same time?

Because they need to justify it by saying they have identified an imbalance (contractors leaving the public sector in droves for the private sector, as has been documented extensively) which they now need to address ASAP.
Not subtle, I know. But you better believe they'll try to frame it that way.

[DotasScandal]

But cavalier behaviour and trying to circumvent the rules on both sides is why we're in this mess in the first place.

Supidly designed, not thought through rules invented by myopic politicians with not one ounce of wisdom is why we're in this mess in the first place.
What you're trying to blame it on here is merely human nature, and a secondary cause.
People have been trying to circumvent the rules in all times and places. Yet plenty of places have a functioning contractor market and no equivalent to the cluster**** that is IR35.

[malvolio]

Because they need to justify it by saying they have identified an imbalance (contractors leaving the public sector in droves for the private sector, as has been documented extensively) which they now need to address ASAP.
Not subtle, I know. But you better believe they'll try to frame it that way.

Make as many excuses as you like. The two drivers for IR35 continuing to exist are employers pushing people to incorporate to avoid their own liabilities and people using every loophole they can find to use a Ltd Co simply to avoid taxation. Add to that the stupid political concept of "fairness" and a flat refusal to listen to any kind of reason and you get to where we are now.

Using schemes that are clearly stretching the point, claiming expenses that aren't business related, claiming mileage and rail fare for the same journey and the rest are nothing to do with IR35 legislation, garbage though it is. They are however why we get little sympathy from HMG and the man in the street.

[eek]

I will stop posting then

I wouldn't stop posting and I give you bonus points for posting before hand.

Let's see what tomorrow brings....

[DotasScandal]

Using schemes that are clearly stretching the point, claiming expenses that aren't business related, claiming mileage and rail fare for the same journey

Congratulations on amalgamating legal tax planning ("Using schemes") with straight fraud ("claiming expenses that aren't business related, claiming mileage and rail fare for the same journey").
Maybe you should do PR work for HMRC. Or do you already do?

[malvolio]

Congratulations on amalgamating legal tax planning ("Using schemes") with straight fraud ("claiming expenses that aren't business related, claiming mileage and rail fare for the same journey").
Maybe you should do PR work for HMRC. Or do you already do?

OK, I won't try explaining further since you are determined not to listen to the substantive point. But to take one sample, using a legal accounting process intended to maximise pension payments from a closed fund by recycling tax allowances and applying it to current earned income is not "legal tax planning".

HTH. BIDI.

[RonBW]

And can HMRC shove a few (million) pennies up their arse?
What if the client doesn't give a feck about the tool. Just agree on QDOS outside determined contract and WP.

The client doesn't have to use the tool - but they do need to make an assessment within 30 days of them being asked to provide one.

So as long as they make that determination, using whatever method they decide, then that will determine who is on the hook for any tax and NI due.

[DotasScandal]

But to take one sample, using a legal accounting process intended to maximise pension payments from a closed fund by recycling tax allowances and applying it to current earned income is not "legal tax planning

It might or might not be (I don't know the case law for this type of arrangement), but with respect, unless you are a tax tribunal judge, it's not for you to decide whether it is "legal tax planning" or not. Naturally, you can have an opinion. HMRC can have an opinion. And I can have an opinion. Then there is due process - or shall we say was, since APNs and their ilk pretty much circumvent it.
But using the HMRC-approved tactic of bundling together "avoidance" and fraud like you just did is disingenuous at best, and makes it difficult to take any of your other arguments seriously.