• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Draft Employment Status Manual Updates

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    That’s passive aggressive.
    Thanks!

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Lance View Post
      That’s passive aggressive.
      How so?

      I apologise if I offended you by thanking people for sharing information. I didn't realise that giving thanks is now on the snowflake list.

      Comment


        #43
        Perhaps he was trying to be funny. I was!

        (I didn't see the joke in his, though)

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
          Thanks!
          You are welcome, you can have that in a friendly or an aggressive way of your choice.

          ESM10015 is interesting, it is not clear how\if disagreements could be arbitrated if the client company fails to understand (or wilfully ignores) a correction\evidence for an alternative determination. The disagreement can also be brought at any point in the engagement, which could span more than one tax year and result in the incorrect taxes being paid back. Any such discussions would probably risk the relationships between PSC and Clients\Agents too. A cheeky PSC could well raise an Employment Tribunal and an IR35 disagreement at the end of a lengthy engagement, and use the evidence from both to fight each claim.

          Reading it all, I'm starting to see why large users of contractors are starting to shut their doors - they just can't handle the complexity and risk. We'll have to see how the labour market responds I guess but the disruption in the meantime is going to be painful.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by IRMe View Post
            You are welcome, you can have that in a friendly or an aggressive way of your choice.

            ESM10015 is interesting, it is not clear how\if disagreements could be arbitrated if the client company fails to understand (or wilfully ignores) a correction\evidence for an alternative determination. The disagreement can also be brought at any point in the engagement, which could span more than one tax year and result in the incorrect taxes being paid back. Any such discussions would probably risk the relationships between PSC and Clients\Agents too. A cheeky PSC could well raise an Employment Tribunal and an IR35 disagreement at the end of a lengthy engagement, and use the evidence from both to fight each claim.

            Reading it all, I'm starting to see why large users of contractors are starting to shut their doors - they just can't handle the complexity and risk. We'll have to see how the labour market responds I guess but the disruption in the meantime is going to be painful.
            That's kinda half been done already, a number of years ago.......the guy generally gets ridiculed for it, but that's CUK for you
            When freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by TestMangler View Post
              That's kinda half been done already, a number of years ago.......the guy generally gets ridiculed for it, but that's CUK for you
              at least the guy has been consistent in saying no employee taxes without employee benefits!

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
                at least the guy has been consistent in saying no employee taxes without employee benefits!
                FWIW I agreed with what you were doing at the time. Just a shame HMRC didn't try to take you for IR35 at the same time or just after. (A shame for us, not you :-) )
                When freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by TestMangler View Post
                  FWIW I agreed with what you were doing at the time. Just a shame HMRC didn't try to take you for IR35 at the same time or just after. (A shame for us, not you :-) )
                  they were going to, but were told (from high) to back off when I lost my ET. Which is why I keep claiming (even in today's posts) that HMRC are unlikely to challenge anyone who has an ET judgement about the engagement.

                  thanks for the words of support. Many others have also supported my position.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
                    they were going to, but were told (from high) to back off when I lost my ET. Which is why I keep claiming (even in today's posts) that HMRC are unlikely to challenge anyone who has an ET judgement about the engagement.

                    thanks for the words of support. Many others have also supported my position.
                    Making a claim thst something is unlikely 15+ years later... Yeah really helpful.
                    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      Making a claim thst something is unlikely 15+ years later... Yeah really helpful.
                      I'm just demonstrating that politics can have an over riding affect on the issues. It was clear by the letters which HMRC revealed to me, as a result of a FOI request, that politics over rode HMRC's desire to chase me under IR35.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X