IR35 PS - So anyone had the discussion yet?

[LondonManc]

I have a funny feeling when HMRC get in to someone their membership status won't be a factor. That would show bias and give everyone an easy out.

It's more their IR35 insurance that I'm talking about - just being a member is one thing but if they've got IR35 insurance, then it's a whole different battle for HMRC.

Expect the following influxes of contractors post April:
Those that are asking how they can take more home under IR35
Those that subsequently get shafted by HMRC for tax dodging
Those that they find out they've got no money after paying expenses out that they cannot claim back because they don't understand IR35.
Those that are facing bankruptcy because they're being retro-grabbed

[northernladuk]

It's more their IR35 insurance that I'm talking about - just being a member is one thing but if they've got IR35 insurance, then it's a whole different battle for HMRC.

Expect the following influxes of contractors post April:
Those that are asking how they can take more home under IR35
Those that subsequently get shafted by HMRC for tax dodging
Those that they find out they've got no money after paying expenses out that they cannot claim back because they don't understand IR35.
Those that are facing bankruptcy because they're being retro-grabbed

Hmm. I get what you are saying but HMRC have legislation then need to enforce and investigate anywhere they believe there is a problem. I'm not so sure avoiding people with certain insurances or memberships is part of that enforcement. They either police it or they don't. If they've got faith in their rules and it has to apply to all they could be criticized if they don't apply it to everyone?

I do know what you mean by avoiding difficult targets but can they afford to do that if they are chasing the principle? I dunno.

[LondonManc]

Hmm. I get what you are saying but HMRC have legislation then need to enforce and investigate anywhere they believe there is a problem. I'm not so sure avoiding people with certain insurances or memberships is part of that enforcement. They either police it or they don't. If they've got faith in their rules and it has to apply to all they could be criticized if they don't apply it to everyone?

I do know what you mean by avoiding difficult targets but can they afford to do that if they are chasing the principle? I dunno.

As I said before, I've worked in a company (I was perm, so don't nit-pick on that one) that had a debt management arm; the prize on offer has to be worth the cost of the case. There will be that many unprotected 'tractors out there that they don't need to fight the hard battles. To be honest, they may well declare those with IR35 insurance as safe due to having operated correctly as a business rather than pursue a high-risk grab on them. I wouldn't like to speculate on numbers but it would be interesting to see what percentage of those in the "was out, now in, same role, same agent" category have/don't have IR35 insurance.

Once you get to those with QDOS's IR35 insurance, they may try a couple of cases to test the water but I can't see them wasting time and resource on large scale grabs without a higher level of confidence than their previous investigations have suggested that they should have.

[RonBW]

Hmm. I get what you are saying but HMRC have legislation then need to enforce and investigate anywhere they believe there is a problem. I'm not so sure avoiding people with certain insurances or memberships is part of that enforcement. They either police it or they don't. If they've got faith in their rules and it has to apply to all they could be criticized if they don't apply it to everyone?

I do know what you mean by avoiding difficult targets but can they afford to do that if they are chasing the principle? I dunno.

I thought that for taking a case to an appeal, they have to be fairly certain that they will win. Or maybe that's only if they are going to court over it.

And you're more likely to win if you have a decent professional fighting your case than if you go it alone.

[NotAllThere]

I know a young locum speech therapist who was told by her agency just a couple of weeks ago, that she needed to shift to a brolly. Mind you, when I checked her hourly rate, she'd have been better off with a brolly anyway.

[northernladuk]

I know a young locum speech therapist who was told by her agency just a couple of weeks ago, that she needed to shift to a brolly. Mind you, when I checked her hourly rate, she'd have been better off with a brolly anyway.

Many locums should be inside anyway depending on their engagement dealing with hospitals so they might actually have put her on the right path. Might, because it's dependent on situation of course.

[RonBW]

I know a young locum speech therapist who was told by her agency just a couple of weeks ago, that she needed to shift to a brolly.

What did she say to that?

[Mordac]

As I said before, I've worked in a company (I was perm, so don't nit-pick on that one) that had a debt management arm; the prize on offer has to be worth the cost of the case. There will be that many unprotected 'tractors out there that they don't need to fight the hard battles. To be honest, they may well declare those with IR35 insurance as safe due to having operated correctly as a business rather than pursue a high-risk grab on them. I wouldn't like to speculate on numbers but it would be interesting to see what percentage of those in the "was out, now in, same role, same agent" category have/don't have IR35 insurance.

Once you get to those with QDOS's IR35 insurance, they may try a couple of cases to test the water but I can't see them wasting time and resource on large scale grabs without a higher level of confidence than their previous investigations have suggested that they should have.

If they have any sense (somewhat questionable I know) they'll go for the low hanging fruit - there'll be plenty of those cases to keep them busy for years.

[northernladuk]

PC has gone very quiet. I wonder if he is busy handing over.... or the phones have gone mad and he's just too busy.

[breaktwister]

If operations as well as projects are impacted, then the first casualty will be The Night Tube, recently introduced on the Victoria and Jubilee lines, and most of the Central, Piccadilly and Northern (Charing Cross) lines. Running a 24-hour Underground depends hugely on maintenance, planning and change resources. If any of these are impacted, even for a short time, then the likely damage is likely to be felt for some months/years, as it won't be easy-to-recover. In all likelihood TfL will have to abandon The Night Tube inside the next few months.

The lying MSM will spin this and all other project cancelations as greedy cheating contractors holding the public sector hostage.