IR35 - Did the big firms collude and break competition law?

[WavyDavy]

I'd turn your phone off in between replies if I were you, what with the radiation killing you and the FBI listening in.

And that's why we're the little guys in all this... because there's always a little guy with a big post count who wants to be tasty.

[WTFH]

Not at all. Competition law is there to protect suppliers. Large companies can't form a working group to decide how they deal with suppliers if that compresses the market. Competition law prevents that. Or should.

Nope.

And the fact that your last 2 sentences go from a definitive to what you think should happen shows that you're trying to force a situation.

If 5 companies use the same accountants and legal advisers, does that mean the 5 companies are colluding or forming a cartel?

If all businesses follow the guidelines and laws of the land, is everyone colluding?

[PTP]

But I guess in keeping with what appears be the trend at the moment we don't like it therefore it must be illigeal.

Sounds like HMRC


By the way, here again they've said their own guidance isn't worth the paper it's written on....this time regarding SDLT

HMRC’s Solicitors informed the Judge that their own, recently updated, Stamp Duty Guidance....should not be factored into his decision on that case

[northernladuk]

And that's why we're the little guys in all this... because there's always a little guy with a big post count who wants to be tasty.

Nearly. It's PC with the little guy and Ladymucks job to be tasty.

[WavyDavy]

Nearly. It's PC with the little guy and Ladymucks job to be tasty.

I love that a serious topic is just a playground for your inside-baseball jokes. I don't come here often, but I do recognise your profile and I'm unsure of ever seeing a sensible contribution from you.

[eek]

I love that a serious topic is just a playground for your inside-baseball jokes. I don't come here often, but I do recognise your profile and I'm unsure of ever seeing a sensible contribution from you.

I've seen more from NLUK in this thread than I've seen in all 14 of your posts over the years.

[WordIsBond]

Advisor says, 'I've talked to all your competitors and if you all work together to stick it to your suppliers / contractors, then you'll be in the clear and probably won't lose anyone.' That's collusion.

Advisor says, 'Here's what the government is doing. It leaves you options A, B, C, D, and E. Here's the disadvantages to A, B, C, and D. E does stick it to your contractors but the others have much higher risks for you. I'm advising all my clients to do E.' Client says, 'Yes, I see all those risks, you are right, we'll do E.' That's not collusion, that's sanity.

If I were back in my perm manager days, I'd be doing E, too. AT LEAST until we see the actual legislation and see if there's ways to mitigate some of the other risks to clients. It's not collusion, it's risk aversion. Who wants to be the one to put his head above the parapet when HMRC is looking for a target? Duh.

[GhostofTarbera]

I've had several conversations of late where people anecdotally mentioned that the IR35 impact to companies isn't as great as feared.

People have said, there's been an emotional reaction, but ultimately, very few contractors have chosen to move on.

Each time, I've asked, "Why do you think that is?"

A consistent response has been, "Because all the large companies had the same response, PSC bans, all contractors through umbrella companies. If companies all took a different approach, then there would have been large movements of contractors to those with a more flexible approach and a greater impact would have been seen"

Each time, I've asked, "How did they all end up using the same approach?"

A common response has been, "oh the larger resourcing companies ran working groups with companies to help them form a consistent response". By "larger resourcing companies", read Alexander Mann, Resource Solutions, etc.

So...

I'm no lawyer, but I work in markets where collusion and competition law are a factor. There are laws that stop cartels from working together to disadvantage market participants. These laws are there to encourage market liquidity and fair competition. If the above is true, and it feels like it could be, these laws would have been broken

Has this been discussed before and is there a legal opinion in the group that has a view?

EY advised most of the big players and gave them all the same advice

No conflict of interest there !!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[Lance]

IR35 - Did the big firms collude and break competition law?

Not at all. Competition law is there to protect suppliers. Large companies can't form a working group to decide how they deal with suppliers if that compresses the market. Competition law prevents that. Or should.

Competition law is to ensure that suppliers of a common service compete with each others’ to ensure that the consumer of the service has choice.

In your example the only common service is that provided by contractors to their clients.
To break competition law, all the contractors (all of them) would have to collude to be anti-competitive.
The client is the customer.

I get your logic, but you have the supplier/customer relationship upside down.

[eek]

Advisor says, 'I've talked to all your competitors and if you all work together to stick it to your suppliers / contractors, then you'll be in the clear and probably won't lose anyone.' That's collusion.

Advisor says, 'Here's what the government is doing. It leaves you options A, B, C, D, and E. Here's the disadvantages to A, B, C, and D. E does stick it to your contractors but the others have much higher risks for you. I'm advising all my clients to do E.' Client says, 'Yes, I see all those risks, you are right, we'll do E.' That's not collusion, that's sanity.

If I were back in my perm manager days, I'd be doing E, too. AT LEAST until we see the actual legislation and see if there's ways to mitigate some of the other risks to clients. It's not collusion, it's risk aversion. Who wants to be the one to put his head above the parapet when HMRC is looking for a target? Duh.

+1 you only have to look at the reaction (from regular posters) to what looks to be Aker's approach mentioned in https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...or-ir35-3.html . Option E is really the only sane option until HMRC have picked their test guinea pig large firms...