RBS, contractors and IR35

[webberg]

The whole purpose of IR35 reform is NOT to say that the rules determining status are changing, but rather the parties operating those rules are changing.

If you have been doing a role for the last 15 years outside IR35 and that is the "correct" decision, then nothing will change EXCEPT you now have to convince a party with less experience that you remain outside.

Successive Governments have not repealed IR35 because it collects money very cheaply. It's not an issue of political philosophy, rather economic practicality.

The point remains that pretty much all the accepted processes and document trails seen since April 2000 will be rendered redundant because individuals now have to convince the end client of status. That end client will want either a risk free environment (blanket inside/no contractors) or no doubt others are willing to be led by agencies and the like who have their own agenda.

It used to be the case that you decided status and you took the risk. That alignment was good.

Post April 20 (now if public sector) you do not decide but you may still be financing the risk.

I hear that the tax law says liability rests with the fee payer -I agree. However we already see said fee payers pushing that risk on to individuals. Are those individuals resisting? Not usually.

The very nature of IR 35 makes each decision bespoke. With the shift of decision making to the end client, my view is that it is for individual and end client to agree the position.

[northernladuk]

blah blah blah

And as usual it comes back around to you and your situation.

[JohntheBike]

And as usual it comes back around to you and your situation.

why would it be anything else? are you any different? I'm just relating my experiences, I don't see you relating yours.

[JohntheBike]

The whole purpose of IR35 reform is NOT to say that the rules determining status are changing, but rather the parties operating those rules are changing.

If you have been doing a role for the last 15 years outside IR35 and that is the "correct" decision, then nothing will change EXCEPT you now have to convince a party with less experience that you remain outside.

Successive Governments have not repealed IR35 because it collects money very cheaply. It's not an issue of political philosophy, rather economic practicality.

The point remains that pretty much all the accepted processes and document trails seen since April 2000 will be rendered redundant because individuals now have to convince the end client of status. That end client will want either a risk free environment (blanket inside/no contractors) or no doubt others are willing to be led by agencies and the like who have their own agenda.

It used to be the case that you decided status and you took the risk. That alignment was good.

Post April 20 (now if public sector) you do not decide but you may still be financing the risk.

I hear that the tax law says liability rests with the fee payer -I agree. However we already see said fee payers pushing that risk on to individuals. Are those individuals resisting? Not usually.

The very nature of IR 35 makes each decision bespoke. With the shift of decision making to the end client, my view is that it is for individual and end client to agree the position.

yes, but I really believe that many, if not the majority of contractors, will not be given the opportunity to negotiate the issues with those that determine the status. Only those in a strong negotiating position, with nothing to lose, are likely to be able to do so, and then will only be judged not subject if they can convince the client of the greater risks, as I see them, of judging them inside.

I really want to be proven wrong, but the history of IR35 and recent events doesn't convince me otherwise. I guess we'll have a better and more realistic debate after HMRC's response to the consultation is released on the 11th of July.

[northernladuk]

why would it be anything else? are you any different? I'm just relating my experiences, I don't see you relating yours.

Because most of them are of no relevance to the up coming reforms and/or are ancient history. People will switch off if I did keep regurgitating my history and turning every thread in to a post about me.

[BR14]

Because they are of no relevance to the up coming reforms and/or are ancient history. People will switch off if I did keep regurgitating my history and turning every thread in to a post about me.

hear. hear.

[JohntheBike]

Because most of them are of no relevance to the up coming reforms and/or are ancient history. People will switch off if I did keep regurgitating my history and turning every thread in to a post about me.

I haven't seen you switch off yet. Anyway, time will tell who's opinion is the most accurate.

[webberg]

All, the purpose of this thread and several others of a similar nature is to discuss the way in which the reform to manner in which IR35 is to be applied, is going to impact FUTURE contracts and working arrangements.

The point I'm struggling to make is that the old ways are going to be history soon and that new ways of managing the end client/intermediary/contractor relationship are inevitable and can (and should) include a very active contractor input.

To a large extent, the lessons from history have limited impact here.

We now have a whole group of end clients who have relied for years on intermediaries for contract staff but who will soon be making very key decisions - often on no preparation.

We have intermediaries who are scrabbling to hold onto influence, input, revenue.

We have contractors who are almost certainly being squeezed - again.

So the point is that if there is no single body who contractors trust - TO MOVE FORWARD - then should there be one?

I get the references to personal positions and often there is much to be learnt from those, but in a new world in which the old order is no longer an influencer, there is a limit to how much relevance we can draw.

It may be that this thread is now redundant however given that RBS deny the original premise it started with and perhaps we all need to move on?

[NeedTheSunshine]

No government will repeal IR35. HMRC have an agenda of max tax. Contractors are a very easy target. It's a no brainer for the Treasury - why on earth would they repeal IR35? The private sector roll out was always going to happen unless someone took a stand. It's a bit late in the day now.

The contract market is most definitely not what it was, and there is no shortage of contractors who are willing to be deemed "inside". Only a handful will have the niche skills to be able to negotiate an "outside" contract/higher rate to compensate for being "inside". End client doesn't want the whole headache of it all - why would they?

[jamesbrown]

It may be that this thread is now redundant however given that RBS deny the original premise it started with and perhaps we all need to move on?

I think so.

As I've said, no amount of lobbying is going to reverse this, despite what IPSE and others might like to think. Lobbyists have a vested interest in over-selling their magical powers and confusing correlation with causation.

The future needs to be viewed w/r to where the power lies in the client/contractor relationship.

BoS contractors are not in a position of power. What are they going to do when their contracts are turned into FTCs? Not work? No amount of lobbying is going to change that. No BoS contractors union is going to change that. This power relationship is dictated by their comparative lack of value in the marketplace.

Specialists are in a different boat because the power relationship is reversed. When a specialist says feck off, I'm not working to those terms, what is a company that desperately needs that specialist going to do? They can't go elsewhere. It rarely makes sense to employ a specialist, unless they are part of a client's BAU.

The only uncertainty is about where the line between these two things will fall.

Sit back, relax, and wait for it to unfold. No one knows precisely how it will pan out.