Finance Bill 2019-20 draft legislation

[jds 1981]

Not convinced a client would want to go through the hassle, surely easier to either end the contract, or add some hoop jumping to ensure that contracts are definitely inside.

[jamesbrown]

yes, the word "statutory" is significant. I can't see the clients wanting to get involved in that.

Scanning the draft legislation, it looks like failure to comply means that the liability transfers from the fee payer to the client.

If the client fails to comply with the duty in subsection (2) or (3) then,
from the end of the period of 45 days mentioned in subsection (2),
section 61N(3) and (4) has effect in relation to the engagement as if
for any reference to the fee-payer there were substituted a reference
to the client; but this is subject to section 61V.

However, the duty in subsection (2) seems very weak indeed. Basically, the client need to consider a representation from the contractor within 45 days and the client can simply say "previous determination was fine" albeit with some "reasons", which could be a restatement of the earlier reasons. However, if the client ignores the representations (which they wouldn't), the liability passes to them in the event of an incorrect decision. But I hardly see a contractor complaining when the decision was in their favour.

[northernladuk]

constantly refers to 'medium' and 'large' organisations. I'm not seeing any definitions of these or 'small', unless I'm missing them?

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._responses.pdf

Companies that engage off-payroll workers are in scope of the reform if they do not qualify as
small under the Companies Act 2006. To qualify as small, a company must meet two of the
following qualifying conditions:
1. Annual Turnover not more than £10.2 million
2. Balance sheet total not more than £5.1 million
3. Number of employees not more than 50.

[jamesbrown]

constantly refers to 'medium' and 'large' organisations. I'm not seeing any definitions of these or 'small', unless I'm missing them?

Most of the draft legislation is dealing with this. More than half. It's basically the Companies Act definition, but some shenanigans w/r to timing and moving between statuses etc.

There is no way the small company provision will last very long. The amount of space consumed alludes to the complexity and the scope for shenanigans.

I reckon it will be gone by 2021-22 or 2022-23.

[northernladuk]

Not convinced a client would want to go through the hassle, surely easier to either end the contract, or add some hoop jumping to ensure that contracts are definitely inside.

In which case they will be breaking the law with blanket determinations and will be losing highly skilled staff which is likely to impact their business. If they don't mind that then bugger them.

Bit organisations have so much skin in the game they'll go through some level of hassle.

[JohntheBike]

Scanning the draft legislation, it looks like failure to comply means that the liability transfers from the fee payer to the client.



However, the duty in subsection (2) seems very weak indeed. Basically, the client need to consider a representation from the contractor within 45 days and the client can simply say "previous determination was fine" albeit with some "reasons", which could be a restatement of the earlier reasons. However, if the client ignores the representations (which they wouldn't), the liability passes to them in the event of an incorrect decision. But I hardly see a contractor complaining when the decision was in their favour.

I can't say I fully understand the implications of what is being proposed and will await an expert analysis, but from what I can see, the responsibility for the RTI submission will now rest with the fee payer. However, although it was summarily dismissed on here by some posters, the fact that an individual paid in variable amounts is now entitled to a payslip, might also be a small irritation for the fee payer. It remains to be seen who will be punished and how, if the "statutory" requirements are not met.

[oliverson]

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._responses.pdf

Cheers.

I just received a 6 month extension to go with the 2 months I have left on my direct contract. Takes me up to end February so I'm very thankful I may have the luxury of sitting back and seeing how all this unfolds. Good luck to everybody out there.

[JohntheBike]

In which case they will be breaking the law with blanket determinations and will be losing highly skilled staff which is likely to impact their business. If they don't mind that then bugger them.

Bit organisations have so much skin in the game they'll go through some level of hassle.

but if they break the law, who is going to punish them and what will the penalties be?

[northernladuk]

but if they break the law, who is going to punish them and what will the penalties be?

They get locked in a room with you for a few hours.

[JohntheBike]

They get locked in a room with you for a few hours.

I'm already the room 101 for some of them.