IR35 - Write to your MP

[JohntheBike]

If I was your MP I'd reply back saying that surely if you're outside of IR35, then you have nothing to fear?

as one commentator has already put it, I suspect that most MP's have not read any of the communications and would certainly not have a clue about IR35, given the standard format of most of the replies that I've seen from others.

[webberg]

OK.

It's been clear to me for many years that they have a different agenda to most. The fact that they didn't sign up to the recent letter sent by CUK and other respected organisations to HMG, would seem to indicate this.

I'm not as prescient as you unfortunately and need to rely upon what I'm told by those who have some knowledge of the situation. I've found that relying on hearsay and reported views is often a recipe that ends with egg on face.

I'll try to find some time to initiate a meeting.

[BlueSharp]

C) The situation is changed, it is the clients who make the determination now. That adds more weight to the unfairness argument -- the client who won't give benefits also says you have to pay as much tax as their employees. You can actually present their determination that you are an employee for tax in an ET -- that's a new fact that was never there before, with unknown ramifications. But as I said above, the employer is just acting as unpaid tax collector. They really don't care if the tax arises by employment, deemed employment or operation of a wholly unjust law. All they care about is whether they might get punished for not collecting the tax. The link between collecting tax - a necessary evil and unavoidable overhead as far as they are concerned - and providing benefits to employees such as statutory sick/maternity pay, holidays, etc, is not a direct or causal one. Therefore the fairness argument is rather wounded?

They also care if they get sued at an ET for not providing benefits or unfair/discrimination terminations of employment. HR have been happy to look the other way as many contractors come out of the capex budget and have zero employee benefits. HR are now being asked to get involved and conduct determinations if a role sits inside or outside for tax purposes using the same evidence that the worker/employer/contractor would present to a tribunal. This makes the blanket everyone is inside with no benefits a much more risky decision for the business and may prompt some to start producing real B2B relationships. We have already seen HMRC settle a case (Winchester) for an inside ir35 contractor and employee benefits so the threat to businesses is very real. If you could still claim expenses (hotel, food, transport) and be inside that would be a different argument IMO but you can't.

[JohntheBike]

I'm not as prescient as you unfortunately and need to rely upon what I'm told by those who have some knowledge of the situation. I've found that relying on hearsay and reported views is often a recipe that ends with egg on face.

I'll try to find some time to initiate a meeting.

yes, hearsay often leads to that conclusion. However, I've only offered an opinion.

[JohntheBike]

They also care if they get sued in the an ET for not providing benefits or unfair/discrimination terminations of employment. HR have been happy to look the other way as many contractors come out of the capex budget and have zero employee benefits. HR are now being asked to get involved and conduct determinations if a role sits inside or outside for tax purposes using the same evidence that the worker/employer/contractor would present to a tribunal. This makes the blanket everyone is inside with no benefits a much more risky decision for the business and may prompt some to start producing real B2B relationships.

agreed