The Decision Tool :)

[eek]

When did liability shift from the payer to the end client?

It shifts to the end client if the end client doesn't provide a decision in 31 days or is found to have not completed the form accurately.

[WordIsBond]

And this is the crux of the matter. As a small consultancy I'm providing the same consultancy as I did when I worked for a big 4, yet my 500 per day should be taxed as PAYE yet the 2000 per day that Big4 received can be taxed as corporate tax as they paid me a salary which was through PAYE.

If I'm deemed employee doing what I'm doing today as an independent then I should have been too as a consultant ... that is, Big4 should be paying NICs etc on the 2000 per day, not on the meagre salary they gave me.

It's actually not "the crux of the matter."

The crux of the matter is that the online tool is supposed to provided good guidance as to how to implement the law.

The law itself, Gordon Brown's ugly stepchild and everything it has bred since then, is a blot on the British tax system and detrimental to the flexible workforce which is so vital to the British economy. I've argued elsewhere that the law should be abolished. But since we have a stupid government that thinks expanding Brown's horrible idea is the wave of the future, the law isn't being abolished. That's life, it's reality.

The crux of the matter as regards the online tool is that it COULD help the matter by reducing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, if it actually reflected the law properly. Since it doesn't, it makes things even worse. And the most likely outcome is that Public Sector Bodies pay the price. That's not horrible, because it could result in a more sane approach in government to this monstrosity of a law.

Q1) Worker: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Q2) Client: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Anything more complicated than that is overkill

Won't work. See my rant to Whorty above. But if you want to change the law, I'll be right there with you.

Before that would work, though, you'd have to somewhat equalise taxation between employment taxes and taxation on corporate profits. Otherwise, every employee in the country would quickly become a PSC, which is a nonsense.

[eek]

Before that would work, though, you'd have to somewhat equalise taxation between employment taxes and taxation on corporate profits. Otherwise, every employee in the country would quickly become a PSC, which is a nonsense.

I suspect the use of IR35 was to use something that already existed as it was less work / risk /effort than other methods. If you look at how the PSC IR35 works its really the bastard child of IR35 and CIS designed to work using existing case law to avoid potential court cases because internal ministerial pressure just wasn't working..

[SueEllen]

did you answer

Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead? truthfully?

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

What do they mean by interview?

Does it mean a chat?

[malvolio]

What do they mean by interview?

Does it mean a chat?

It is not unreasonable for the client to assure themselves that the proposed subbie is capable of doing the work to the same standard. They can do that by trusting PwC to send in someone capable ( ) or they have a full interview, or anything in between. Exactly how they assure themselves is up to them. Meaning you can't make it a binary question...

[eek]

What do they mean by interview?

Does it mean a chat?

To me means anything which allows the end client to say no... That could be a chat, it could be an interview. The way I read the question is can I send someone in to do my work without the client complaining about it....

[SueEllen]

To me means anything which allows the end client to say no... That could be a chat, it could be an interview. The way I read the question is can I send someone in to do my work without the client complaining about it....

The problem with that is that the person could do a day or two days work and the client could say we tried them out and they were unsuitable. Now is trying them out a form of "interview"? Well there are posts that randomly appear here with people saying the client wants their first day or so to be an interview.

If they are working on your site or at home, and the client is aware that this person is doing all or part of the work for you, then they are less likely to say "No" if you aren't breaching NDAs and security. However they can still say "No" if they want to as they are paying for the service.

Oh and when I worked for consultancies you were interviewed for every project you were put on, so in short the question is not based on reality.

[jamesbrown]

in short the question is not based on reality.

Or on case law.

[koalah]

Did the tool on Thursday and all was okay for being outside, even saying no to substitutes. Saved the results. Now just tried to do it again so that I can print it as end client and agency have asked to see my answers so they can proceed with extending contract and all I'm getting from answering the first question (Are you a worker?) is Bad CSRF token found in query String
Giving that for all three, so I guess the beta is broken already.

[eek]

Did the tool on Thursday and all was okay for being outside, even saying no to substitutes. Saved the results. Now just tried to do it again so that I can print it as end client and agency have asked to see my answers so they can proceed with extending contract and all I'm getting from answering the first question (Are you a worker?) is Bad CSRF token found in query String
Giving that for all three, so I guess the beta is broken already.

Clear your browser cache and start again....