Government review is on website

[SouWester]

...the question is what do they mean by fraud.

They mean everything, here is HMRC's 'definition': "The general term ‘fraud’ has a wide significance and there is no simple definition which covers the full range of conduct to which it may be applied. "

EM5105 - Enquiry Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK

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

[ComplianceLady]

But it sounds nice.

It's also irrelevant as I think you would easily be have until the end of the tax year to resolve any mistakes you make during it.

Yes but the headline being sold is 'softer approach in year 1' - the detail is not that. It's cynical and dangerous. I don't have many good things to say about HMRC but this really is poor.

[jamesbrown]

BAU for fully overseas supply chains. Shame about that, but it makes sense.

[eek]

"Where errors are identified HMRC will help customers to correct them, to pay the tax and National Insurance Contributions that are due and to ensure status determinations are correct going forwards."

This concerns me - it effectively means the 'no penalties' approach is meaningless. No one is concerned about the penalty on its own, it is the whole liability - this won't change clients approach in the slightest.

But it sounds nice.

It's also irrelevant as I think you would easily be have until the end of the tax year to resolve any mistakes you make during it.

[ComplianceLady]

"Where errors are identified HMRC will help customers to correct them, to pay the tax and National Insurance Contributions that are due and to ensure status determinations are correct going forwards."

This concerns me - it effectively means the 'no penalties' approach is meaningless. No one is concerned about the penalty on its own, it is the whole liability - this won't change clients approach in the slightest.

[simes]

If HMRC had not separated fraud out I would be looking at the document and telling anyone who wished to rollover into an inside contract that they were safe to do so. The additional use of the word fraud fills me with dread - HMRC are very good at both ignoring what they have said when it's inconvenient for them and adding seemingly unnecessary words that they then use whenever they want.

Agreed.

But I think at this juncture, a route to maintaining ones world of little or no disappointment, would be to just disbelieve anything they have to say.

Preparing for the worst, is my mantra.

[eek]

Which is why when this bit has been quoted in other posts citing that HMRC have stated a promise and so everyone can take a deep sigh of relief, others say that it will be BAU for the HMRC to do whatever they like.

Case in point:

Chaps, do we suspect fraud at GSK?
Why, yes!
Have we told everyone Else not to blanket assess?
Yeah, but since there's rampant fraud...
Right-o, fire off an enlightening letter to their contractors.

If HMRC had not separated fraud out I would be looking at the document and telling anyone who wished to rollover into an inside contract that they were safe to do so. The additional use of the word fraud fills me with dread - HMRC are very good at both ignoring what they have said when it's inconvenient for them and adding seemingly unnecessary words that they then use whenever they want.

[simes]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...e_strategy.pdf is HMRC's published approach

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...

Which is why when this bit has been quoted in other posts citing that HMRC have stated a promise and so everyone can take a deep sigh of relief, others say that it will be BAU for the HMRC to do whatever they like.

Case in point:

Chaps, do we suspect fraud at GSK?
Why, yes!
Have we told everyone Else not to blanket assess?
Yeah, but since there's rampant fraud...
Right-o, fire off an enlightening letter to their contractors.

[eek]

https://assets.publishing.service.go...e_strategy.pdf is HMRC's published approach

HMRC has already committed to not using information resulting from the changes to therules to open a new compliance check into Personal Service Companies for tax years priorto 6 April 2020, unless there is reason to suspect fraud or criminal behaviour.

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...

[simes]

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?

My hope in recent past was, as I am being paid from abroad, but work from home, London and NL, that I 'should' have been outside of any Inside or Outside debate. Not the case.