Results of the public sector consultation is up

[SueEllen]

All based on the false assumption that all contractors draw all company revenue as personal income. That might be true for construction workers, but is not necessarily so for knowledge workers.

Construction workers buy tools and safety kit.

[malvolio]

Which makes IPSE part of the problem. They're not going to advocate throwing people under the bus who should be while taking membership fees from them.

So go away and define the dividing line between a freelance contractor and someone who is merely pretending to be one. Then tell IPSE which of their members fail that test and won't get protected.

To save you the effort, there are two groups that qualify: those who have been forced into incorporation that should never have been (e.g. several thousand television technicians) and the Friday to Monday brigade who have brought the whole sorry mess on the rest of us.

Or we continue to fight on the basis that 4.5 million people don't want to be employees in any shape or form. As soon as you say "Well, OK, that bunch over there don't count", you've lost not only this argument but every other one as well. Given IPSE are the only people actually fighting this mess, I don't see ruining their stance as in any way helpful. And this constant insistence that some freelances are somehow more freelance than others is just nonsense, and misses the whole point of the discussion.

[MrMarkyMark]

Nope you are looking in the wrong place there. Temporary workplace is set within HMRC Travel and Subsistence documentation which I'm not going to linked to here. The logic however goes:-

If I get a permanent job in London I can't claim expenses to get into London.
If I take an IR35 covered contract in London my permanent base instantly becomes London.

Jobs inside IR35 are treated identically to being a permi for that is the default rule. The ability for us to call home our base is unique to consultancies (and even then not always) and contractors.

Sometimes consultants are allocated a "home" office, in one of the consultancies actual offices.

In my Mrs. case this office was not very far away from our home, so she used to get them trying to send her to the back of beyond for each client.
This was purely a way of them to preserve getting the expenses past the two year rule.
Obviously, if they had let her use her home, they may have fallen foul of the 2 year rule, in the London area, for example.
All the northern based people were working in London, also

It was very much in their interest to do this, as they ran a travel business as well and all travel arrangements had to be booked through them, kerrrchhiiiinnnnng.

Of course the consultancy is one very widely used by the government, you really couldn't make it up

[eek]

All based on the false assumption that all contractors draw all company revenue as personal income. That might be true for construction workers, but is not necessarily so for knowledge workers.

Meh. You are looking at it from your point of view. Switch it round and look at it from HMG's point of view and tax avoidance is taking place and they want it stamped out....

[seeourbee]

In theory yes, but I would say that person is in a lot weaker position arguing that it's a business with many clients.

[Lewis]

Well yeah, but a P45 is a statement of taxes paid, nothing else. Given they are paying taxes on your behalf I'd have thought it a useful backup.

Simply hiding behind semantics isn't going to help anyone. It's also not going to change to any significant degree and it's not going to confer any kind of employment rights and benefits. Finally expenses stop because you can't get expenses if you're IR35 caught (yes, I know, exceptional expenses are still allowable - that doesn't cover going to your normal work). People need to start planning how they are going to deal with it.

Yeah yeah I know, I was merely pointing out they are reusing a form that as it currently stands is clearly for employement purposes - just to add to the confusion!

[eek]

Given IPSE are the only people actually fighting this mess, I don't see ruining their stance as in any way helpful.

Because others are definitely going to be fighting this just focusing on different battles to IPSE - for whom I'm struggling to see a battle that works for their membership that doesn't confirm what seems to be HMG's opinion of them.

My advice for IPSE would be to go and read When I met chancellor Hammond after Autumn Statement 2016 :: Contractor UK until you fully understand the implications of it.

Then look at it from HMG's viewpoint and see if you can work out how you can achieve their desire without letting public sector departments ride roughshod over HMG's desire for people who should be on payroll.

At a minimum that means killing both Monday to Friday contracting and binning those forced to move to freelancing and if that means others are caught by collateral damage HMG aren't going to be concerned.

[LondonManc]

Yep http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...anagement.html which I will grant is me gloating but heck I'm 2 up at the moment regardless of the rewards IPSE have won.....

IPSE appears to have a conflict/confluence of interest - selling insurance against something that they're campaigning to abandon. If it's abandoned, then they have no product to sell.....

As for the VAT part, surely if we're taxed as employees, there should be no VAT involved and we go on payroll?

[LondonManc]

So go away and define the dividing line between a freelance contractor and someone who is merely pretending to be one. Then tell IPSE which of their members fail that test and won't get protected.

To save you the effort, there are two groups that qualify: those who have been forced into incorporation that should never have been (e.g. several thousand television technicians) and the Friday to Monday brigade who have brought the whole sorry mess on the rest of us.

Or we continue to fight on the basis that 4.5 million people don't want to be employees in any shape or form. As soon as you say "Well, OK, that bunch over there don't count", you've lost not only this argument but every other one as well. Given IPSE are the only people actually fighting this mess, I don't see ruining their stance as in any way helpful. And this constant insistence that some freelances are somehow more freelance than others is just nonsense, and misses the whole point of the discussion.

I was merely making an observation that there appears to be a flaw in the plan suggested.

The problem is the companies - they want to avoid business NICs on a mass basis and our most efficient tax vehicle has been forced on us by HMRC.

I'm not advocating throwing anyone under the proverbial bus - I'm saying (yet again) that HMRC want to go after the mass avoidance of business NICs but don't have the necessary foresight of the crapfest that they face and the actual new numbers; they blindly see the missing NICs as an extra income without looking at the opportunity cost to gain that purported £440m

[eek]

IPSE appears to have a conflict/confluence of interest - selling insurance against something that they're campaigning to abandon. If it's abandoned, then they have no product to sell.....

As for the VAT part, surely if we're taxed as employees, there should be no VAT involved and we go on payroll?

Lets not go there again. VAT is neutral in HMRC's eyes and really just a minor admin task (yep I know its work) for companies whose income is above x...

If your company has an income before tax of £83k VAT is required, earn below £83k with only a public sector client and you could deregister....