IPSE have sent an email out

[RonBW]

You can probably find the links on here as much as on there. Look for when I first started talking about retrospective claims in early December.

I can't see IPSE posted anything here since November

[teapot418]

You can probably find the links on here as much as on there. Look for when I first started talking about retrospective claims in early December.

Can only find this from malvolio which agrees with someone suggesting retrospection is likely. Although don't think he's still on the board?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...il-2017-a.html

[MrMarkyMark]

And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

[malvolio]

And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

That's not what was said, as you well know. And HMRC talk to IPSE regularly on all sorts of issues that may affect contractors, as you also know.

The driver for both of your examples - and several others - was wilful abuse of what would otherwise be perfectly valid options. HMRC see us gaining a tax advantage in the same light. Snag is, they are completely wrong, but are you going to tell them that?

[malvolio]

Can only find this from malvolio which agrees with someone suggesting retrospection is likely. Although don't think he's still on the board?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...il-2017-a.html

Not since 2009...

[Fred Bloggs]

And they wonder why hmrc see them as representing tax Dodgers. It's worth repeating that this has been in motion for years

Agency reporting requirements
Travel expenses for umbrellas
Now this

All planned in step to ensure there is a dataset to target - and they were surprised when hmrc said no to their request. Nice of them to give senior hmrc people the idea to look at people retrospectively though. Means that it can't be quietly dropped

Myself, I'm actually struggling to see what all the fuss is about. At the other place, the mantra has always been - "We're businesses, not tax avoiders. We're not in it to reduce our tax, we're in it for the lifestyle choices". When questions have been raised in the past about the insidious creeping tax burden, they have been met with the above response. A classic one was the dividend tax that hurts contractors WAY more than the population at large, not a peep was heard from over there.

So, if you are all in it (especially those over in the other place) for the lifestyle, why are you all whinging about a few quid in extra tax?

At least I have always been honest, I have never, ever, pretended it to be about lifestyle - To me it has always been about selling my skill for as much as possible and hanging on to it as much as I legally could within the MyCo Ltd structure. And I'll be quite frank about it, I have done darn well out of it too. Times have changed, time to move on.

It is chickens coming home to roost time now?

[eek]

That's not what was said, as you well know. And HMRC talk to IPSE regularly on all sorts of issues that may affect contractors, as you also know.

The driver for both of your examples - and several others - was wilful abuse of what would otherwise be perfectly valid options. HMRC see us gaining a tax advantage in the same light. Snag is, they are completely wrong, but are you going to tell them that?

Not quite. We use Limited companies because since the 1970's we cannot be self employed due to agencies abusing Self Employment.

Since the 1970's the tax system has changed to make limited companies more attractive and more tax efficient than the other options.

IPSE's problem is that they believe contractors are special and have a right to be special, hence schemes such as the FLC.

My viewpoint isn't that we are special but that I've done very well out of the tax efficiencys I get from the way I work - but I understand and accept things need to change due to the complete and utter abuse of the current system (everywhere but especially inside the Public Sector).

You will note that the one thing I have continually objected to was the expense changes when inside IR35. Thinking about it that really should have been in IPSE's email because for those like Tarbera who travel what could still be a nice contract inside IR35 really isn't..

[eek]

Myself, I'm actually struggling to see what all the fuss is about. At the other place, the mantra has always been - "We're businesses, not tax avoiders. We're not in it to reduce our tax, we're in it for the lifestyle choices". When questions have been raised in the past about the insidious creeping tax burden, they have been met with the above response. A classic one was the dividend tax that hurts contractors WAY more than the population at large, not a peep was heard from over there.

So, if you are all in it (especially those over in the other place) for the lifestyle, why are you all whinging about a few quid in extra tax?

At least I have always been honest, I have never, ever, pretended it to be about lifestyle - To me it has always been about selling my skill for as much as possible and hanging on to it as much as I legally could within the MyCo Ltd structure. And I'll be quite frank about it, I have done darn well out of it too. Times have changed, time to move on.

It is chickens coming home to roost time now?

That's slightly unfair. The dividend tax hit contractors but it didn't raise total tax paid to the same level as PAYE and the expenses changes they announced and pushed through at the same time were far more significant.

You can't fight multiple battles at the same time IPSE picked the most important one to fight then....

[Fred Bloggs]

That's slightly unfair. The dividend tax hit contractors but it didn't raise total tax paid to the same level as PAYE and the expenses changes they announced and pushed through at the same time were far more significant.

You can't fight multiple battles at the same time IPSE picked the most important one to fight then....

Sorry, I disagree. For Joe public to be hit by the dividend tax at all he needs to have around GBP 200k invested in dividend paying shares OUTSIDE an ISA or a pension. Given that most/many contractors split their dividends with their wives, that means to be hit by the divi tax to the same extent, Joe and Jane public need a cool GBP 400k invested OUTSIDE of tax shelters. How many people meet that description? Anyone who invests in shares does so in an ISA first, year after year. Joe and Jane can shelter GBP > 30k every year in ISAs.

So, the fact that TPTB at the other place dismissed the tax grab as "not a contractor issue", they as usual, miss the point by a mile and deny the inevitable consequences. Make no mistake, if the IR35 reforms fail then divi tax is going UP. There can be no doubt at all about it.

Edited to add - Oh, by the way, don't forget, all the brolly users got pushed under the bus any way with regard to expenses. No doubt because, "we're real businesses, so it shouldn't affect us". Yeah, right.

[eek]

Sorry, I disagree. For Joe public to be hit by the dividend tax at all he needs to have around GBP 200k invested in dividend paying shares OUTSIDE an ISA or a pension. Given that most/many contractors split their dividends with their wives, that means to be hit by the divi tax to the same extent, Joe and Jane public need a cool GBP 400k invested OUTSIDE of tax shelters. How many people meet that description? Anyone who invests in shares does so in an ISA first, year after year. Joe and Jane can shelter GBP > 30k every year in ISAs.

So, the fact that TPTB at the other place dismissed the tax grab as "not a contractor issue", they as usual, miss the point by a mile and deny the inevitable consequences. Make no mistake, if the IR35 reforms fail then divi tax is going UP. There can be no doubt at all about it.

Edited to add - Oh, by the way, don't forget, all the brolly users got pushed under the bus any way with regard to expenses. No doubt because, "we're real businesses, so it shouldn't affect us". Yeah, right.

You miss the fact it hit all company directors not just people using limited companies to sell their own services. Given that it really just moved dividend payments closer to PAYE tax levels while I dislike it, you can't argue against it. Granted you need to save an awful lot to otherwise be effected but given most people invest via ISAs it probably only effects directors of small companies and was intended to do so.

The expenses issue is a different one made especially hard by the fact most umbrellas were not playing fair (read outright abusing and ignoring) with the existing rules and were allowing clients to claim travel expenses from home when the umbrella was being used for a single contract. That abuse of what are fairly easy to understand rules meant arguing against the rule was incredibly difficult (believe me I watched umbrellas try in person).

So I think we'll need to agree to disagree there