Results of the public sector consultation is up

[MrMarkyMark]

There is a proposal being put forward but I'm not at liberty to discuss it at the moment .

Thanks for that

[billybiro]

And your point is?

My point is that, given the enough guile of the contractor, a devious enough financial adviser, and enough money (which doesn't need to be anything near the 400mil in the previously linked article) one can relatively easily and legally (or at least quasi-legally) hide significant sums of money away from HMRC's prying eyes..

They have multiple income streams and very good legal support to justify what they do. And they can afford to be caught - I don't see Jimmy Carr on the breadline right now.

We don't.

Speak for yourself. Many braggarts in this very thread have mentioned how much money they've made. These are serious and significant enough sums over time that "squirrelling away" that income becomes a very viable course of action.

And they can afford to be caught

And yet, they very rarely are, are they?

[northernladuk]

There is a proposal being put forward but I'm not at liberty to discuss it at the moment .

I'm sure you'll find away around the legislation we don't fully understand yet and no one else knows how to do. Good luck.

[Andy Hallett]

To be fair the legislation hasn't changed. The person deciding whether to apply it has.

[m0n1k3r]

If its anything like current clientco they won't be offered - FTC's aren't an option....

It won't necessarily be the end client that will operate the FTC. In the case of working through a consultancy, it would obviously be the consultancy.

[eek]

It won't necessarily be the end client that will operate the FTC. In the case of working through a consultancy, it would obviously be the consultancy.

Depends on the terms the consultancy / outsourcing company has. At current clientco its still a no due to politics....

[m0n1k3r]

Depends on the terms the consultancy / outsourcing company has. At current clientco its still a no due to politics....

A PS client that doesn't allow its supplier to have employees? Strange.

The FTC employee would obviously be charged out to the client on a day rate just like any other employee of the supplier.

[eek]

A PS client that doesn't allow its supplier to have employees? Strange.

The FTC employee would obviously be charged out to the client on a day rate just like any other employee of the supplier.

outsourced service agreements. They can be a political nightmare....

[seeourbee]

[GDL]

Practical ways of dealing with changes in the PS

Ok,
I'm just about to start a PS CL1 contract, so on balance, I think it likely to be inside IR35 anyway, regardless of changes in April next year. I am likely to look for another PS contract afterwards (domain knowledge).

I'm clear that inside IR35 means no travel to temporary work address and that you receive a 'deemed salary' and pay employer and employee NICs and PAYE.

I think you can claim 5% expenses before the deemed salary calculation is done, up to the changes in April. I think you can still claim something for capital allowances e.g. purchase of a computer for work - also before the deemed salary calculation.

It seems pointless to get into the FRS (my company is not VAT registered yet). I don't want to do anything about pensions as I have adequate provision from previous permanent roles.

I'm not clear about renting a room to the business, spouse small salary for administration before the deemed salary calculation.

I think the balance may be changing in favour of an umbrella company after April?