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!
I had to check the document, as I thought it had not downloaded all of it. 26 pages including 5 for the title/blank/contents.
I bet the document detailing the subsidised food at Westminster is longer.
Only thing I can take from the IR35 mess is that the largest majority Conservative Government since thatcher will loose the next election because of a policy devised by a non elected Labour politician.
I have been a ltd company contractor for 15 years. And now find my sector completely empty. Looking at crap perm jobs.
At least there will be no more long drives and staying away from home. Few months and we can all start picking fruit, now the low skilled workers are banned from the EU
I think you are dreaming.
The reality is that no-one gives a toss about a few hundred thousand contractors. They know it and contractors know it hence why they're pressing ahead with it.
What will lose them the next election is if they get someone truly electable in opposition and they don't come up with any completely crackpot policy ideas. There is also the small matter of them delivering for the north, kind of ironic considering it was successive Thatcherite governments which shafted them.
In the grand scheme of things we have to move on. This fight is over. The only thing that is left is giving the government a bloody nose from time to time via class actions against clients. Give how apathetic contractors have been in banding together to fight these changes, the prospect of class actions in the future is very slim indeed.
Last edited by ShandyDrinker; 27 February 2020, 15:35.
Of course it does. We probably shouldn't have talked about the stupidity of the original approach and just let them get on with it.
Not that it changes anything I'd be doing anyway.
Yeah
Likewise. It’s practically very hard to be inside w/ an overseas client anyway. Would’ve been nice to be irrelevant in principle, but it changes nothing really.
I had to check the document, as I thought it had not downloaded all of it. 26 pages including 5 for the title/blank/contents.
I bet the document detailing the subsidised food at Westminster is longer.
Only thing I can take from the IR35 mess is that the largest majority Conservative Government since thatcher will loose the next election because of a policy devised by a non elected Labour politician.
I have been a ltd company contractor for 15 years. And now find my sector completely empty. Looking at crap perm jobs.
At least there will be no more long drives and staying away from home. Few months and we can all start picking fruit, now the low skilled workers are banned from the EU
The concern was though that HMRC would use an Inside determination by the client to challenge *any* move from outside to inside regardless of what the contractor had done. This removes that worry and gives us a means to defend ourselves if Fraud is the only criteria they can use.
Hopefully you are right. But "fraud" is NOT the only criterion they can use.
The criterion is "reason to suspect fraud or criminal behaviour." All they have to do is claim they have "reason to suspect" and the investigation opens. Then, even if they don't find fraud or criminal behaviour, they might find something else like, say, non-compliance with the intermediaries legislation. Well, obviously, they opened the investigation because they had reason to suspect. Thankfully, that suspicion was wrong so they don't have to charge you with fraud or criminal behaviour. They are so glad about that, but in the meanwhile, they did notice this, and would you please pay your IR35 taxes?
You may say I'm cynical but I say you are very trusting of an organisation that has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy.
is the important bit - the question is what do they mean by fraud. Criminal behaviour is clear (no-one here would be caught by that requirement) fraud is a far more open question...
The addition of fraud doesn't matter. They can claim to suspect tax evasion which is criminal behaviour. The killer here is not the addition of the word 'fraud' but the use of 'reason to suspect' rather than 'evidence of.'
If you go outside to brolly at the same client, that's not evidence of either criminal behaviour or fraud, but they can certainly claim it is 'reason to suspect.'
Leave a comment: