Is there still hope?

[sira]

Why? what would that actually solve.

Let's get this disaster started so we can see the end result rather than delaying the inevitable.

Wouldnt solve anything. I guess it would give people some breathing room to make a bit more money to offset the economic hit from coronavirus.

[BrilloPad]

Wouldnt solve anything. I guess it would give people some breathing room to make a bit more money to offset the economic hit from coronavirus.

It would not help blanket bans.

[Barry Badrinath]

He is such a bell end on Linkedin with his posts, stoking up panic, exaggeration and spreading false news.

He's like the Daily Sport's IR35 correspondent, with less boobs.

[eek]

He is such a bell end on Linkedin with his posts, stoking up panic, exaggeration and spreading false news.

He's like the Daily Sport's IR35 correspondent, with less boobs.

But a Daily Sport reporter with an incentive (probably of £000s to scare people into joining the Tax avoidance schemes his website advertises).

[WordIsBond]

In the other topic it was hinted that HMRC sees PSC ban/no determination as an inside IR35 marker.

Logically this is a determination in the eyes of HMRC, but it has not been done using reasonable care.

And this are 2 snippets of text directly from HMRC's documents.

I wrote the other topic. So let's talk about how HMRC works. They argue what suits their case, and they don't have to be consistent.

The stuff the esteemed correspondent quoted from them said nothing about blanket bans. It talked about blanket determinations, which are not the same thing.

It suits HMRC to have blanket bans, it puts everyone on payroll which they think will bring in more tax (even though it likely won't in the long run). So blanket bans=good.

It suits HMRC for political reasons to say that blanket determinations are very naughty, so that they can continue to claim that the truly self-employed aren't affected. So they issue statements like the ones our Gerry quotes. They might even tell someone who does it that they were bad and please stop, but certainly there will be a light touch on that.

It suits HMRC for political reasons to say that blanket bans are not hitting the truly self-employed, so they have to make blanket bans good, thus, blanket bans are done because those people should have been inside.

It will suit HMRC for enforcement reasons to say what they said above (for political reasons) when chasing historical IR35 claims against contractors.

None of this means HMRC is going to use their guidance to try to "correct" clients who institute PSC bans, contra Gerry. And none of it means they will not use their political propaganda to claim that historical contracts are proven to be inside by a PSC ban.

They'll use which statements they wish when it suits their purposes.

And Gerry's an idiot at best.

[rnsuk]

Gerry McLaughlin's site - write anything for views in an attempt to sell the tax avoidance schemes that advertise on it....

Told the site they spelt Rishi Sunak wrong TWICE in one post. ( I personally would spell his name Rishi Sunak-Cummings )

No thank you , just changed the spelling and deleted my post.

[eek]

And Gerry's an idiot at best.

Calling Gerry an idiot is an insult to idiots...

[SimonMac]

Calling Gerry an idiot is an insult to idiots...

[WordIsBond]

Calling Gerry an idiot is an insult to idiots...

This is a fair point and if any of them will self-identify, I'll apologise to them personally.

[ladymuck]

This is a fair point and if any of them will self-identify, I'll apologise to them personally.