Results of the public sector consultation is up

[eek]

Read the whole document. It's very clear that the worker will not become a employee. How that stacks up legally, after Uber, is .

FTFY as I know test cases will be forthcoming....

[MrMarkyMark]

That requires someone at HMG/HMRC to be prepared to listen and understand that there's a difference between a specialist and a permietractor and to be both able to and prepared to work that difference into legislation. At that point, permietractors could then accept that their easy ride is over and go back perm, FTC or full PAYE via umbrella and proper microconsultancies can continue.

That arguably also relies on us specialists making more of a case that we work more than the hours seen on site/billed for because we have other things to do to maintain ourselves as specialists.

Arguably very true if you are a product specialist for 20 years+ as you and I are LM.
,
We both know, the best contract in our market, we usually only find a good perm, who has previously been a contractor, or a boutique consultant.

D&C are moot, as we are usually telling the client what they need to do, rather than the other way round.
Obviously, they spec out what they want and that is usually roughly, at best.

[Lance]

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.

Differs slightly from the text of the document.

Step 3 - deduct an amount as represents expenses that would have been deductible if the worker had been the client’s employee and the expenses had been met by the worker out of those earnings

The next trick is to get the PS site as a temporary workplace. How exactly a 6 month contract 100 miles away could be classed as a permanent workplace I'm not sure.

[eek]

Indeed. I've been saying that for a long time like here..

http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...ml#post2295462

same as Eek who also mentioned it here

http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...ml#post2329670

and quite a few other people. Not all would state it on the forum but it's still a widely discussed option.

You get a lot of stick for suggesting it but still think it was something that should be done. Would it have avoided this I don't know but that's no reason not to consider it at some point.

Heck I've said as much on IPSE's forums multiple times..... Then again I've taken to speaking my mind....

[eek]

Differs slightly from the text of the document.




The next trick is to get the PS site as a temporary workplace. How exactly a 6 month contract 100 miles away could be classed as a permanent workplace I'm not sure.

It is because you are permanently there. The fact your job is of a temporary nature is irrelevant to the rules.

For very long term contractors the reaction to the expenses problem would be one of meh. Prior to 1996 expenses were rather different to what they currently are (unfortunately I can't remember the exact details but I know I wasn't re-claiming train fares into London back then).

[LondonManc]

Heck I've said as much on IPSE's forums multiple times..... Then again I've taken to speaking my mind....

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.

[seeourbee]

hear hear

Damn right. I know a "contractor" who has been doing what he's been doing for 10 years now. A contractor! Don't make me laugh. I have contracts that are 3m, 6m etc - proper contracting work. The long stayers have totally effed it up for a genuine industry.

[Lance]

It is because you are permanently there. The fact your job is of a temporary nature is irrelevant to the rules.

For there long term contractors the reaction to the expenses problem would be one of meh. Prior to 1996 expenses were rather different to what they currently are (unfortunately I can't remember the exact details but I know I wasn't re-claiming train fares into London back then).

According to this document.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...scussion-paper

“Permanent workplace” in turn is defined as being a workplace that they attend regularly and which is not a “temporary workplace”.

temporary workplace defined as

whether the employee is attending the workplace for a limited duration or a “temporary purpose”

whether they perform, or expect to perform their duties to a significant extent at the workplace (interpreted to mean spending over 40% of their working time there – also known as the “40% rule”)

whether they attend, or expect to attend, the workplace for more than 24 months

That definition is precisely the same for a permie, a temp or a contractor.
But a permi breaks the 24 month rule as it's a permanent job.

[MrMarkyMark]

Damn right. I know a "contractor" who has been doing what he's been doing for 10 years now. A contractor! Don't make me laugh. I have contracts that are 3m, 6m etc - proper contracting work. The long stayers have totally effed it up for a genuine industry.

There was a guy recently at our place who had been contracting there for 25 years .

They eventually got rid, yet he was back a couple of months later as they needed him for a particular project

[LondonManc]

Damn right. I know a "contractor" who has been doing what he's been doing for 10 years now. A contractor! Don't make me laugh. I have contracts that are 3m, 6m etc - proper contracting work. The long stayers have totally effed it up for a genuine industry.

That's why I like the two year rule for expenses - big projects can take 18 months + wrap-up but longer than that is BAU rather than a project. The daft thing is that it (the 24 month expense rule) also applies if I were to get a job for a rival who is based in a similar area (as rival companies often are - car industry in the midlands, banks in CW/The City, etc.) so I cannot leverage experience gained with one client to any real financial benefit with the next one!