Government review is on website

[WordIsBond]

It's a bit of a fop as in this globalised world, what large or medium sized entity does Not have a UK, or at least multi-country, presence?

This has to be close to the stupidest comment you've ever blessed our hearts with.

[WordIsBond]

To save others like me who have been looking for clarify on overseas supply chains with no UK presence - the legislation has been updated so that things continue as they currently are.



Bit of a shame as I was hoping to shunt the risk onto the overseas client (who HMRC would likely never be able to pursue) but at least I know where I stand now and am in control of my determination..

It was always going to end up there, if not now, within a year.

[simes]

I still don't understand why the Treasury office is working on this. Surely this should come under Dept Work and Pensions, who should create and run the CEST tool. Based on the outcome of that tool, HMRC etc would then get involved to collect the tax.

Ah, the CEST tool.

Consider the irony. The point at which it has finally become, if not perfect then, useful is the point at which it is all but redundant as the client estate decide just Not to use PSCs.

[eek]

I still don't understand why the Treasury office is working on this. Surely this should come under Dept Work and Pensions, who should create and run the CEST tool. Based on the outcome of that tool, HMRC etc would then get involved to collect the tax.

Surely HMRC wouldn't want to mis-classify workers to get more tax? Massive conflict of interest here?

This isn't even all of HMRC - that's the bit everyone misses. This is the Employer NI part of HMRC.....

[eek]

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.

That might have been your concern - mine was that you would be on the radar as HMRC adopted a scattergun approach of firing 100,000 letters and seeing who responds. Then ignore the 3,000 with responses from qualified experts and chase everyone else...

Now I really didn't expect anyone on here to have a problem but I really do expect an awful lot of others would...

[pacontracting]

Review of changes to the off-payroll working rules: report and conclusions - GOV.UK

I still don't understand why the Treasury office is working on this. Surely this should come under Dept Work and Pensions, who should create and run the CEST tool. Based on the outcome of that tool, HMRC etc would then get involved to collect the tax.

Surely HMRC wouldn't want to mis-classify workers to get more tax? Massive conflict of interest here?

This is what bothers me...

It denies the taxpayer significant revenue for essential public services and perpetuates an unfairness between two individuals working in the same way, but paying different levels of tax.

If two people are truly working in the same way, then surely the person being disadvantaged would change their working arrangement so as not to be disadvantaged. If they don't, then there must be an advantage that that 'disadvantaged' worker is benefiting from, and hence, by definition, is not working in the same way?

[DaveB]

Which is where we have always been when it comes to retrospective investigations (ala GSK). Those who respond with a professional letter written by an expert are going to be left well alone as HMRC moves to an easier target (after all there will be a lot to choose from).

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.

[eek]

It is a slight improvement for those that have done the due diligence and got their contracts reviewed, insurance in place, working practices agreed etc. and have what under the current rules would be a clear outside determination.

If HMRC try to justify an investigation on the basis of fraud they would have a hard time doing that since the contractor has clearly taken steps to ensure that the decision on status was properly considered.

In the event of an enquiry letter a response from QDOS etc demonstrating that this had been done should persuade them to move onto easier targets who haven't done things properly.

Which is where we have always been when it comes to retrospective investigations (ala GSK). Those who respond with a professional letter written by an expert are going to be left well alone as HMRC moves to an easier target (after all there will be a lot to choose from).

[DaveB]

It is a slight improvement for those that have done the due diligence and got their contracts reviewed, insurance in place, working practices agreed etc. and have what under the current rules would be a clear outside determination.

If HMRC try to justify an investigation on the basis of fraud they would have a hard time doing that since the contractor has clearly taken steps to ensure that the decision on status was properly considered.

In the event of an enquiry letter a response from QDOS etc demonstrating that this had been done should persuade them to move onto easier targets who haven't done things properly.

[Paralytic]

'Suspect fraud' can mean pretty much whatever they want it to.

This. They don't have to prove fraud. So long as they can come up with a reason to say they suspected fraud, even if it later turns out to be completely unfounded, they can open an investigation and still comply with their "promise".