Results of the public sector consultation is up

[m0n1k3r]

Fine, then the MD is outside IR35. But all his minions are. I sit next to them ! So by fairness those portions of the KPMG bill should be taxed under Paye.

IR35 only applies where the worker has control over the company and have material shareholding (defined as > 5%). I find it hard to believe that any minions would have that. In the case of KPMG, I also find it hard to believe that the MD would have it.

[eek]

I think I'm still coherent thanks. And it's entirely relevant unless you can show me one post that you have made that is fully supportive of IPSE's activities.


In your opinion. I'm not marketing anything. Were you paying attention in the other place you may have seen that marketing and communicating the range of IPSE's benefits more effectively was one of my main proposals. Let's see how that develops, shall we.

As I fundamentally believe that IPSE's campaigning has achieved little in the last few years beyond making IPSE seem to Government ministers as supporting tax avoiders (see the When I met chancellor Hammond after Autumn Statement 2016 :: Contractor UK albeit I know that IPSE aren't anywhere near the worst culprits and are being tarred with the same brush as far worse culprits) its hardly likely that I can be fully supportive of IPSE's activities. Especially as I can't think of any claimed success after Arctic that I believe is a success and, let's be generous, I'm rather dubious about the claimed success of IPSE's T&S campaign (for reasons I really can't be arsed to discuss again).

What I do, however, still do is encourage people to join - and perhaps you should think about why I still do so given my opinion of their campaigning and the explicit hostility there is between various IPSE representatives, directors and myself....

[m0n1k3r]

With pensions you will get tax refunded to a degree when you make personal (taxed) contributions. It's less than now but permies generally can't stick massive wadges of cash into their company pensions so there is some argument for it.

Personal contributions, yes, but my service agreement with my company also stated that the company should make employer's contributions for me.

I think it is very tricky to start talking about obligations to yourself. If you haven't kept back enough cash/credit to pay yourself when you're sick, isn't that a matter of prudence rather than law?

It is not about my obligations to myself. It is about my employer's obligations to me. The company is a legal entity distinctly separate from myself. Working through a limited company, I am (according to the government) an employee of it.

https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview (see "If you set up a limited company ...")

The company must have the means to keep back enough cash/credit to keep paying me a salary when I'm sick, on holiday etc. On that basis, it is entirely unreasonable to assume that whatever the company received will be used in its entirety to pay wages.

[eek]

Personal contributions, yes, but my service agreement with my company also stated that the company should make employer's contributions for me.



It is not about my obligations to myself. It is about my employer's obligations to me. The company is a legal entity distinctly separate from myself. Working through a limited company, I am (according to the government) an employee of it.

https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview (see "If you set up a limited company ...")

The company must have the means to keep back enough cash/credit to keep paying me a salary when I'm sick, on holiday etc. On that basis, it is entirely unreasonable to assume that whatever the company received will be used in its entirety to pay wages.

Under IR35 however your company is utterly irrelevant. You are taking on a public sector contract inside IR35 and therefore are being paid via PAYE. Your company, all agencies and anyone else between the public sector client and you personally are an irrelevance to HMRC....

[youngguy]

Personal contributions, yes, but my service agreement with my company also stated that the company should make employer's contributions for me.



It is not about my obligations to myself. It is about my employer's obligations to me. The company is a legal entity distinctly separate from myself. Working through a limited company, I am (according to the government) an employee of it.

https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview (see "If you set up a limited company ...")

The company must have the means to keep back enough cash/credit to keep paying me a salary when I'm sick, on holiday etc. On that basis, it is entirely unreasonable to assume that whatever the company received will be used in its entirety to pay wages.

I'm interested to see what legal advice ipse are getting and where that goes .

Probably nowhere but let's see.

[m0n1k3r]

Under IR35 however your company is utterly irrelevant. You are taking on a public sector contract inside IR35 and therefore are being paid via PAYE. Your company, all agencies and anyone else between the public sector client and you personally are an irrelevance to HMRC....

... for tax purposes only. The company still has employer and other obligations, as well as still being viewed as a real, genuine and separate legal entity as an employer for the purposes of the Companies Act.

I'm fine with the HMRC wanting to disallow me to draw any income from IR35 gigs as dividends, but it is simply conflated thinking that a specific tax status would release the company from its other obligations.

Anyway - this is not a problem if it is clear from the outset that a specific opportunity will be taxed under IR35. The issue appears if the engager would later simply change its mind - and especially if it would then apply retroactively, even if the working conditions themselves could be shown to be well outside any normal employment or worker relationship.

[MrMarkyMark]

... for tax purposes only. The company still has employer and other obligations, as well as still being viewed as a real, genuine and separate legal entity as an employer for the purposes of the Companies Act.

I'm fine with the HMRC wanting to disallow me to draw any income from IR35 gigs as dividends, but it is simply conflated thinking that a specific tax status would release the company from its other obligations.

Anyway - this is not a problem if it is clear from the outset that a specific opportunity will be taxed under IR35. The issue appears if the engager would later simply change its mind - and especially if it would then apply retroactively, even if the working conditions themselves could be shown to be well outside any normal employment or worker relationship.

Agreed, hence why they state on the supporting documentation they make it clear that they believe the LTD is responsible for supplying any employee benefits.

It certainly does not sum up with the explanation of trying to be "fair", that's for sure

[LondonManc]

Agreed, hence why they state on the supporting documentation they make it clear that they believe the LTD is responsible for supplying any employee benefits.

It certainly does not sum up with the explanation of trying to be "fair", that's for sure

I think we need to start doing as PC does and claim JSA between contracts. They want us to have rights, we'll use them.

[MoroccanMole]

And the Ltd Company has no operating income from which to provide employee benefits......

[MoroccanMole]

In fact, assuming 100% Public Sector work, the Ltd Company will not be able to remain solvent because no income and no allowable expenses.

So how does that tally with the responsibilities of being a Director of a Ltd Company if my entire company earnings are paid as a salary without leaving anything over to cover the running of a business.

Will I be reporting a loss each year?