IPSE have sent an email out

[RonBW]

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?

As I understand it, being forced inside ir35 changes both lifestyle and taxation - you can't pay into your pension efficiently under these rules, you can't retain profit for lean times - and under these proposals you are worse off than anyone who is an employee.

But as an employee, none of this (including the dividend tax, presumably) affects you in the slightest.

[difficulttimes]

Masterstroke..

Coming back to the letter, I really think that IPSE have played fire with fire with the inclusion of the possibility of 'retrospective'. Some may argue that this gives HMRC an idea but I'm pretty sure they already had it and all they need to do is read this forum as well.

This email not only scares the contractor into walking but also would concern the end client because any investigation into working practices and contract would have to involve conversations with the end client. If we are talking hundreds if not thousands then PS bodies legal teams, HR teams etc. would be involved in conversations they don't want to be having.

It may stem the tide of a blanket everyone inside approach that TfL tried to implement.

P.S I think this email will also increase members taking up IR35 insurance. Something that will soon not exist when it transfers to the end client and eventually the private sector

[northernladuk]

Coming back to the letter, I really think that IPSE have played fire with fire with the inclusion of the possibility of 'retrospective'. Some may argue that this gives HMRC an idea but I'm pretty sure they already had it and all they need to do is read this forum as well.

This email not only scares the contractor into walking but also would concern the end client because any investigation into working practices and contract would have to involve conversations with the end client. If we are talking hundreds if not thousands then PS bodies legal teams, HR teams etc. would be involved in conversations they don't want to be having.

It may stem the tide of a blanket everyone inside approach that TfL tried to implement.

P.S I think this email will also increase members taking up IR35 insurance. Something that will soon not exist when it transfers to the end client and eventually the private sector

I'm on the fence on the fence about IPSE but this is a bit ridiculous. If anyone argues this gives HMRC an idea then they are idiots and you want to stop talking to them.

Also about scaring a contractor, if it does hit everyone will be moaning IPSE didn't tell them. It's a possibility it's unknown and no one can discount it so it would be remiss of IPSE to not mention it.

You don't get any communication you complain, you get it and you complain (rather badly). They just can't win.

Are you an IPSE member?

[Fred Bloggs]

As I understand it, being forced inside ir35 changes both lifestyle and taxation - you can't pay into your pension efficiently under these rules, you can't retain profit for lean times - and under these proposals you are worse off than anyone who is an employee.

But as an employee, none of this (including the dividend tax, presumably) affects you in the slightest.

Errr, no. You will still be able to move from job to job or take time off or all the other life style choices. Just pay more tax, which apparently, isn't a life style issue at all. Mind you, when asked over there how many of them voluntarily pay the extra tax for being IR 35 caught, you are met with silence. Cake and eat it, anyone?

[Fred Bloggs]

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). (FB - Edited the quote)

Be careful using arguments like that. The bit I highlighted is EXACTLY the same argument that is being used to reinforce the application of IR35.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'm on the fence on the fence about IPSE but this is a bit ridiculous. If anyone argues this gives HMRC an idea then they are idiots and you want to stop talking to them.

Also about scaring a contractor, if it does hit everyone will be moaning IPSE didn't tell them. It's a possibility it's unknown and no one can discount it so it would be remiss of IPSE to not mention it.

You don't get any communication you complain, you get it and you complain (rather badly). They just can't win.

There will be NO retrospection. HMRC do NOT have the resources. Fact.

[northernladuk]

There will be NO retrospection. HMRC do NOT have the resources. Fact.

I wonder how many people would have said something like that about PS bodies putting all contractors inside IR35 not so long ago.

[cojak]

I'm on the fence on the fence about IPSE but this is a bit ridiculous. If anyone argues this gives HMRC an idea then they are idiots and you want to stop talking to them.

He wasn't suggesting this, eek suggested it in an earlier post.

[SueEllen]

Be careful using arguments like that. The bit I highlighted is EXACTLY the same argument that is being used to reinforce the application of IR35.

HMRC have many contractors working for them so they only need to look around their own department to make up arguments.

[eek]

HMRC have many contractors working for them so they only need to look around their own department to make up arguments.

I suspect come April the tense will be had.