Finance Bill 2019-20 draft legislation

[JohntheBike]

I think you are right on this point -- I think it is the only way for most to salvage this thing. That's how it should be played in the press, it is something that the man on the street can understand and say, 'That's not fair.' It's simple, it is simple fairness. HMRC doesn't care, but there are politicians who will.

And if contractors can win that battle, it will also help the ones who don't want employee benefits, because it will give clients an incentive to drop the blanket approach of declaring everyone inside IR35. They can then decide, full employment rights or adjust working practices and contracts to be outside. Some will decide one way, some another, but you'll have more outside roles if employment rights are tied to tax status.

In the past, it wasn't practical to tie the two because the contractor's tax status was not the client's business. Now that the client makes that determination, employment rights (in any fair system) should follow that decision.

edit: I'm still willing to consider you a pariah, however, so you can continue to feel martyred. I'm a nice guy that way.

I don't feel martyred, but I appreciate your constant position.

[Lockhouse]

That is not just 'your view', it is manifestly the legal position as things stand.

It is also, in terms of both justice and politics, the weak link in HMRC's development of Gordon Brown's abomination. 'The company I'm contracting for decided I have to pay tax as an employee but won't give me holiday pay, sick pay, paternity pay, notice when they terminate the position, etc.'

Go tell that story in the pub and see how your mates respond. Tell it in the press and sentiment can turn on this pretty quickly. The disconnect between tax and employee rights is indeed current law but it is unjust. Contractors, with a few exceptions, have not pursued this line because they didn't want either the employee tax or the employee rights. HMRC have taken advantage of that, but I think they've now forced contractors to attack this weak point.

I don't think it's a weak point. I think it's an important moral distinction.

[Barry Badrinath]

I quite liked that test, and it did seem thorough. And I liked its result for me, which was never in doubt - but note that although it's free, the 'pass' result leads to an attempt to sell a certificate for £60 and other assurance services. Might be appropriate for some people.

Oh most definitely. Dave the noble crusader should make a decent wedge from that.

[mudskipper]

Oh most definitely. Dave the noble crusader should make a decent wedge from that.

He ain't a charity. The man has to earn a living.

[poorautojobber]

It's pretty simple for me no paye without benefits unless the contract rate is massively lifted which is unlikely. So perm land is calling if this goes tits.

I've booked a nice long Holiday for April if I'm in contract with same client and they try to put me inside for no resson I'm out the door I won't take the Historical risk. Contract calculator posted a letter to an NHS trust a while ago fishing for details of people they put on payroll.

To me it's simple all contracts and working practices are reviewed by an independent company (qdos etc) and insured to protect the client, total cost less than £500 a year. From the cases that have come to tribunal recently I can't see how many have much to worry about. Problem is we need clients to be on the ball which is unlikely based on the tulip show we see every day.

[Maslins]

There still seems to be a view that an external firm of adviser can present a "solution" for many scenarios (presumably meaning keeping the role outside IR35). I think this is a false premise.
(snip)
A solution that starts with that contract and does not audit your actions and if necessary correct what you are doing day to day, is going to fail to keep you outside IR35.

I don't think the external firms/big corporates would be naive enough to think just contract changes would suffice here. However the big corporates have the power to change the working practices of the contractors too.

So the external firms (or indeed internal legal bods) can give very specific instructions in terms of working practices. They must ensure contractors all do A, B & C. Contractors must never X, Y & Z. It might be the case that some of those things are things the corporate aren't prepared to put up with (eg substitute, or giving too much control to the contractor) for some roles, in which case those will be a no go for outside contracts. However, the general premise seems very plausible for quite a lot of contract work.

Given HMRC have lost a lot of IR35 challenges when the end client didn't have any skin in the game, seems to me HMRC's chances of winning when the corporate and contractor are both on the same page would be very slim. So as long as the corporate (and contractor) takes some care, is it that big a risk?

[Barry Badrinath]

He ain't a charity. The man has to earn a living.

Got no problem with it at all, absolutely fair play to him. But obviously the consistent tone of his doomsday rhetoric will play into folk paying for these services. Not that I am saying he is wrong.

[boxingbantz]

For now you do. You are in a temp gig, not a perm job.

I don't get what your point is.

I know I'm in a temp gig and not a perm job...

[JohntheBike]

Got no problem with it at all, absolutely fair play to him. But obviously the consistent tone of his doomsday rhetoric will play into folk paying for these services. Not that I am saying he is wrong.

but at least he has put a good fight, which doesn't appear to be the case for others, given that none of the arguments put forward by those claiming to be close to government have made a blind bit of difference.

[Invisiblehand]

but at least he has put a good fight, which doesn't appear to be the case for others, given that none of the arguments put forward by those claiming to be close to government have made a blind bit of difference.

He has put up a decent fight but for his own reasons.

With the changes analysts will still analyse, developers will still develop but I'm not sure how commercially viable a contractor information website will be. I wish him the best of luck, I just find the whole self proclaimed champion of the contractor a little hollow.