Results of the public sector consultation is up

[youngguy]

Perfectly logical if you think like a politician, who are simple folk and who have trouble handling several ideas at once. They see it as someone doing the same work should be paying the same level of taxes. On that basis their position is perfectly consistent.

What escapes their limited intellect is that we get paid more for several reasons, such as not sponging off the employer for everything, that we save the client money by disappearing as soon as we aren't needed and for usually having a lot more experience and skills gained in a variety of environments so we deliver faster and to a higher quality else we wouldn't have got the gig in the first place. Also that we are 100% utilised whereas the best any employee can manage is 80% and often less, the rest being spent on non-productive things mandated by their employer. Also that we pay, on average, rather more into the tax system than any employee.

The problem is, they aren't listening to rational argument. All they understand is HMT telling them we should pay more tax in the interests of fairness. And any attempt to disabuse them of that concept is because we are trying to avoid paying taxes.

It's just like those morons who shout "racist" if anyone says "Brexit". We are trying to defeat Pavlovian reflexes

This!

Sadly,when they hold the power,they are under no obligation to listen to sense and they can define fair and logical shower they please.

[bobspud]

The mistake is to misunderstand IR35 legislation. It uses employment tests to determine your tax status. There I no other connection between the two which are determined by completely different and separate legislations.

The confusion now is because full taxes are being deducted at source based on a determination by a third party. Quite rightly, if HMG want to take on people taxed as employees with no allowance for the existence of their limited company then they should take on an employee. Additionally, the AWR rules on parity will probably apply, meaning holiday pay, equality of opportunity and similar after 12 (?) weeks. And, of course, the determination of inside says that the "client" intends to exercise SDandC for the engagement.

That changes the basis of the linkage between tax and rights, but ISTM that to make it stick you have to go to an employment tribunal and use the determination to say that the client is treating you as an employee while denying you employment rights and benefits. Of course, the defence would be that taxation status and employment are separate issues. Let's hope someone bites the bullet and takes this through the legal system in depth.

Basically it's Catch22 reimagined by Kafka.

That's already been done. The first stage has already been lost by Uber and best of all the axe in their head came thanks to their obsession with controling their workers.

There is a hell of a lot less work to do than you have been making out.

Wandering into any government department right now with their own guidelines under your arm and the court judgment then asking then what they would like to do next is going to cause them more panic than a FOI request

[eek]

That's already been done. The first stage has already been lost by Uber and best of all the axe in their head came thanks to their obsession with controling their workers.

There is a hell of a lot less work to do than you have been making out.

Wandering into any government department right now with their own guidelines under your arm and the court judgment then asking then what they would like to do next is going to cause them more panic than a FOI request

As an utter aside, it seems that thanks to the way uber works VAT should have been paid on all rides

[MPwannadecentincome]

Moving from the hypothetical to reality

Christmas Eve news from the agent for my PS gig, the PS client will expect all contractors who are currently PSC to convert to Brolly, or go to agency PAYE or cease work their PSC contracts by 5th April. As they are need time to recruit "replacements" for the numbers they expect not to take the Brolly or PAYE option the contractors have to have signed new contracts in Feb.

So, no need to take any in / out assessments then, either the contractor is in Brolly or PAYE or out.

[daemon]

Ok, apologies if this is a stupid question -

Are ALL contractors (whether inside IR35 or not) that are contracting via an agency going to have the test applied by their agencies?

I ask because I am currently working in the PS and am currently outside of IR35, however i've been offered an extension into a new role that would put me inside IR35.

I'm happy to take my medicine on being inside IR35, however i dont necessarily want all my info highlighted with HMRC by the agency on the 6th April as being inside of IR35 but having been with the PB for a year and thus possibly end up on some "list" as a candidate for an investigation.

OR, do we know what information agencies will be providing to HMRC relating to tenure with PB?

[northernladuk]

Be a good start to read some threads so you can understand the situation better.

[cojak]

Ok, apologies if this is a stupid question -

Are ALL contractors (whether inside IR35 or not) that are contracting via an agency going to have the test applied by their agencies?

I ask because I am currently working in the PS and am currently outside of IR35, however i've been offered an extension into a new role that would put me inside IR35.

I'm happy to take my medicine on being inside IR35, however i dont necessarily want all my info highlighted with HMRC by the agency on the 6th April as being inside of IR35 but having been with the PB for a year and thus possibly end up on some "list" as a candidate for an investigation.

OR, do we know what information agencies will be providing to HMRC relating to tenure with PB?

There's a distinct possibility that any one extending and going inside IR35 will have their previous contracts closely scrutinised by HMRC, because if you're inside now you were probably inside then!

HMRC are rib-tickling jokers, aren't they?!

[daemon]

There's a distinct possibility that any one extending and going inside IR35 will have their previous contracts closely scrutinised by HMRC, because if you're inside now you were probably inside then!

HMRC are rib-tickling jokers, aren't they?!

But what if you go inside IR35 now, as opposed to 6th April? Does that remove the requirement to have your contract put through the questionnaire / details potentially sent to HMRC?

[daemon]

Be a good start to read some threads so you can understand the situation better.

I had been trawling through the threads and hadnt seen that answered, hence why i asked? Maybe it has - i just didnt see it. Wood for the trees and all that...

Also, your intimation is that i dont understand the situation, so maybe you could give me some pointers as to what you think i dont understand relative to my situation outlined?

[MrMarkyMark]

Ok, apologies if this is a stupid question -

Are ALL contractors (whether inside IR35 or not) that are contracting via an agency going to have the test applied by their agencies?

I ask because I am currently working in the PS and am currently outside of IR35, however i've been offered an extension into a new role that would put me inside IR35.

I'm happy to take my medicine on being inside IR35, however i dont necessarily want all my info highlighted with HMRC by the agency on the 6th April as being inside of IR35 but having been with the PB for a year and thus possibly end up on some "list" as a candidate for an investigation.

OR, do we know what information agencies will be providing to HMRC relating to tenure with PB?

Suggest you get any personal effects from the desk and get out of dodge pretty feckin sharpish.

Just saying like