IR35 Agency rate breakdown

[malvolio]

I don't really get the confusion around this.

It's precisely what the legislation expects to happen.

Sure, we could've predicted that most clients and fee payers wouldn't want to bother with the faff, but this situation is literally the core of what the legislation intended.

I disagree. The whole point is that the YourCo is a vehicle with no purpose other than avoiding tax (or, more accurately, NICs). There is no reason to pay YourCo so it can immediately pass it on to you, and there is no reason not to pay it into your personal account.

Except of course the agency still think YourCo and You are indivisible and all they know is how to pay companies, not people. Perhaps in their confused little minds they think paying you personally puts you on their payroll.

Complete nonsense - but then so it the whole fecking exercise.

[NeedTheSunshine]

Ok thanks to you and the others here responding so quickly, greatly appreciate your time and knowledge.

In the meantime i am going to step up the campaign here IR35 is 100% wrong im happy to go this route as long as im paid holiday and sick pay like every other person paying the same tax an NI rate.

And that's the issue, paying all the same taxes and NI but no perks. But it's a bit late in the day. There is a protest next week (I think 12th Feb although not sure).

[NeedTheSunshine]

Protest Day

Just found a link on another thread

It's an hour of your time. If you're in London take an early lunch break

Westminster Protest and Lobby Day - Stop The Off-Payroll Tax

[jamesbrown]

I disagree. The whole point is that the YourCo is a vehicle with no purpose other than avoiding tax (or, more accurately, NICs). There is no reason to pay YourCo so it can immediately pass it on to you, and there is no reason not to pay it into your personal account.

Except of course the agency still think YourCo and You are indivisible and all they know is how to pay companies, not people. Perhaps in their confused little minds they think paying you personally puts you on their payroll.

Complete nonsense - but then so it the whole fecking exercise.

You disagree with what?

I am not talking about intentions or what might be possible, I am talking about draft legislation.

There is nothing unclear about this.

A deemed payment is a thing and it's perfectly clear that a deemed payment doesn't change anything else about the contractual relationship. When a worker continues to be fronted by a company, then the deemed payment is made to the company. It's up to the Client and the Fee Payer to decide whether they allow or disallow other types of engagement, such as employment, in which case there is no deeming and hence no deemed payment.

[LondonManc]

I disagree. The whole point is that the YourCo is a vehicle with no purpose other than avoiding tax (or, more accurately, NICs). There is no reason to pay YourCo so it can immediately pass it on to you, and there is no reason not to pay it into your personal account.

Except of course the agency still think YourCo and You are indivisible and all they know is how to pay companies, not people. Perhaps in their confused little minds they think paying you personally puts you on their payroll.

Complete nonsense - but then so it the whole fecking exercise.

The YourCo vehicle is in response to the original IR35 legislation years ago; it's more the use of disguised pems by companies where the avoidance of NICs is rife.

I'd argue that it's easier to go on to an agency's payroll for the duration of the contract; cut out the umbrella and get paid further up the line without another set of commission being taken.

[JPC]

And that's the issue, paying all the same taxes and NI but no perks. But it's a bit late in the day. There is a protest next week (I think 12th Feb although not sure).

Why is it late in the day out of interest? Who pushed this IR35 legislation through?

[northernladuk]

Who pushed this IR35 legislation through?

Erm. That would be me. Very sorry.

[ladymuck]

Erm. That would be me. Very sorry.

You killed Kenny! You....

[malvolio]

You disagree with what?

I am not talking about intentions or what might be possible, I am talking about draft legislation.

There is nothing unclear about this.

A deemed payment is a thing and it's perfectly clear that a deemed payment doesn't change anything else about the contractual relationship. When a worker continues to be fronted by a company, then the deemed payment is made to the company. It's up to the Client and the Fee Payer to decide whether they allow or disallow other types of engagement, such as employment, in which case there is no deeming and hence no deemed payment.

We don't care about the draft legislation. what is actually happening is companies are saying they won't deal with PSCs. End of. The draft and ultimately real legislation simply doesn't matter, the companies have taken a different route.

End result is the same, but the remedies in the legislation are utterly useless.

That's why I disagree with your analysis

[jamesbrown]

We don't care about the draft legislation. what is actually happening is companies are saying they won't deal with PSCs. End of. The draft and ultimately real legislation simply doesn't matter, the companies have taken a different route.

End result is the same, but the remedies in the legislation are utterly useless.

That's why I disagree with your analysis

It isn't an analysis, it's a statement of fact about what a deemed payment involves, which is literally at the core of the legislation. It is simply a misunderstanding (either of my point or the fact) that deemed payments were somehow envisaged as paid to the contractor directly. Nonsense. In themselves, they don't change the supply chain or the contractual relationships. How companies react is a totally different thing and was equally obvious from the beginning (i.e., not making assessments and hence not using deemed payments), so you're completely missing my point.