Worth one last final try?

[Lockhouse]

I'll be there on Wednesday. If you can go, why on Earth wouldn't you?

[DevUK]

It is much more than just a shift in liability. It means that a biased party is determining your tax burden. It means that they make that determination not based merely on the justice of the matter but on their own concerns. The person/company that determines your tax liability is threatened by the power of the state if they decide on a lower rather than higher number.

In short, it's a violation of due process, placing contractors before a biased tax tribunal.

That's fair enough, you make a good point.

[WordIsBond]

and I thought I was the only one who believed that. Remember the FTT used to be called the "Commissioners for Taxes", or similar, and were always biased in my opinion.

In that case, you haven't been paying attention. I said it here, and you commented right after that.

I'm of the view it violates the ECHR 6.1. Perhaps someone like IPSE could challenge it on that basis, if they aren't too busy pointlessly lobbying someone or other.

[WordIsBond]

To be fair, the law doesn't need to change, just the clients' implementation of such.

No. The law gives clients strong incentives to implement it in exactly the way that they have.

Declare people outside? Potential tax liability.

Declare people inside? Potential employment tribunal liability.

Stop hiring PSCs? No potential liability. Just harder, at least for a while, to get projects done, until contractors get hungry and are willing to go umbrella or FTC.

In almost every case, the third option will be more appealing to clients.

[JohntheBike]

In that case, you haven't been paying attention. I said it here, and you commented right after that.

I'm of the view it violates the ECHR 6.1. Perhaps someone like IPSE could challenge it on that basis, if they aren't too busy pointlessly lobbying someone or other.

In that case, you haven't been paying attention.

sorry, I am getting a little forgetful. It comes with old age.

if they aren't too busy pointlessly lobbying someone or other

isn't that what they've been doing all along?

[JohntheBike]

No. The law gives clients strong incentives to implement it in exactly the way that they have.

Declare people outside? Potential tax liability.

Declare people inside? Potential employment tribunal liability.

Stop hiring PSCs? No potential liability. Just harder, at least for a while, to get projects done, until contractors get hungry and are willing to go umbrella or FTC.

In almost every case, the third option will be more appealing to clients.

Declare people outside? Potential tax liability.

agreed.

Declare people inside? Potential employment tribunal liability.

agreed

Stop hiring PSCs? No potential liability.

agreed, and even I didn't see that coming!

it will be interesting though how HMRC will defend their assertion that genuinely self employed contractors will not be affected by the change in regulations. Clearly, clients have already demonstrated that this is not the case. However, HMRC are so intransigent, that they will stick their heads in the sand and ignore all contrary evidence or lie about the situation. How interested MP's are taking what Jesse dishes out without seriously challenging him, beggars belief.

I really can't see that option 3 will change much, unless there are severe repercussions in the market place, or there is some clever challenge to that position.