Public sector contracting

[bobspud]

That hasn't stopped them so far - ask the people on the BN66 thread

But let's not forget those of you in the BN66 thread were using aggressive tax avoidance loopholes that should have told you what you were doing was wrong and not in the spirit of the law.

This concerns UK tax payers that collect VAT and pay corporation tax. We specifically do not want employee rights or benefits, however wish to use a simple legal government derived vehicle to run a business with limited liability...

Apparently the big boys are setting up to solve this problem for the government. They will be offering outsourced solutions on mass... I can see that little ginger tulip ripping their arms off and fujitsu/FSA style deals where it costs £27k per document review being the norm...

[BolshieBastard]

But let's not forget those of you in the BN66 thread were using aggressive tax avoidance loopholes that should have told you what you were doing was wrong and not in the spirit of the law.

Well, they say ignorance is bliss!

[centurian]

But let's not forget those of you in the BN66 thread were using aggressive tax avoidance loopholes that should have told you what you were doing was wrong and not in the spirit of the law.

I wasn't part of the tax avoidance scheme hit by BN66, nor have I engaged in similar schemes.

We specifically do not want employee rights or benefits, however wish to use a simple legal government derived vehicle to run a business with limited liability...

Which is most definately against the spirit of the Intermediaries Legislation - however well crafted an argument you can produce to get round the near-useless implementation of said legislation - and many can (myself included). But be under no illusions that you are acting in a way which is not in the spirit of the law.


But the point was in response to voter intentions and government policy. Between 2008-10 the Tories were scathing in their criticism of retrospective legislation - but have now performed a massive U-turn, despite many of the scheme users probably being Tory voters.

So it seems on taxation matters, they do not seem to be giving much thought as to future voting intentions of those affected.

[bobspud]

I wasn't part of the tax avoidance scheme hit by BN66, nor have I engaged in similar schemes.



Which is most definately against the spirit of the Intermediaries Legislation - however well crafted an argument you can produce to get round the near-useless implementation of said legislation - and many can (myself included). But be under no illusions that you are acting in a way which is not in the spirit of the law.


But the point was in response to voter intentions and government policy. Between 2008-10 the Tories were scathing in their criticism of retrospective legislation - but have now performed a massive U-turn, despite many of the scheme users probably being Tory voters.

So it seems on taxation matters, they do not seem to be giving much thought as to future voting intentions of those affected.

Actually I know two senior architects that won their ir35 cases proving very well that it is more than ok to work as a PSC within the spirit of the law.

I don't think anyone will want to be seen fighting to help the people caught in those schemes Even if the argument of overturning the retrospective nature is the right thing to do.

I think we are in for a few years of very crap jealousy driven witch hunts...

[centurian]

Actually I know two senior architects that won their ir35 cases proving very well that it is more than ok to work as a PSC within the spirit of the law.

Absolutely not - it just means that their cases were within the letter of the law.

For the cases to be brought in the first place almost certainly means they were not acting in the spirit of the law - otherwise HMRC would have just moved on.


The intent of IR35 was perfectly clear. Being able to sidestep that intent (as many contractors do) means you can legally comply with the law, but that does not mean you are acting in a way that conveys the underlying intent that parliament had when it passed the law.

[bobspud]

Absolutely not - it just means that their cases were within the letter of the law.

For the cases to be brought in the first place almost certainly means they were not acting in the spirit of the law - otherwise HMRC would have just moved on.


The intent of IR35 was perfectly clear. Being able to sidestep that intent (as many contractors do) means you can legally comply with the law, but that does not mean you are acting in a way that conveys the underlying intent that parliament had when it passed the law.

I thought IR35 was there to stop employees finishing on Friday and turning up on Monday at the same firm while hiding behind a PSC...

Bit like this chap...

HMRC Is tulipe: A Nice Little Earner

[swamp]

What exactly is the 'public sector' here? We can safely assume the Student Loans Company is included, but even if this represents the outer radius this is a big circle.

What about organisations receiving public grants? What about (largely) public-owned companies like RBS? What about the BBC?

[centurian]

I thought IR35 was there to stop employees finishing on Friday and turning up on Monday at the same firm while hiding behind a PSC...

That was one example given in the original press release (link below). But if you read the document in full, it is very clear that it is far more wide ranging than that. If they simply wanted to get rid of Friday-to-Monday contracting, the legislation would have been so much easier to implement.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] COUNTERING AVOIDANCE IN THE PROVISION OF PERSONAL SERVICES - HM Treasury

There has for some time been general concern about the hiring of individuals through their own service companies so that they can exploit the fiscal advantages offered by a corporate structure

The proposed changes are aimed only at engagements with essential characteristics of employment. They should affect only those cases where these characteristics are disguised through use of an intermediary - such as a service company or partnership

[BoredBloke]

That was one example given in the original press release (link below). But if you read the document in full, it is very clear that it is far more wide ranging than that. If they simply wanted to get rid of Friday-to-Monday contracting, the legislation would have been so much easier to implement.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] COUNTERING AVOIDANCE IN THE PROVISION OF PERSONAL SERVICES - HM Treasury

The whole Friday Monday thing was so that they could spin it as some form of employment protection - stopping big co from pushing its employees out into limited companies etc.

[bobspud]

Look out folks they are trying to get the final draft out and enforced by next week