Public sector contracting

[bobspud]

How are you all getting on?

I spent 8 weeks on the bench after I walked from my last client over this crap. Am now out of government work and doing ok, but I saw the PCG email today.
Looks like the nay-sayers early down the thread were spot on. We have been raped !

I notice that Deliotte and PWC are still fine despite their tax positions so all must be well...

[centurian]

Looks like the nay-sayers early down the thread were spot on

As one of those said nay-sayers, it gives me little pleasure to be correct. But I know first hand, that there is nothing more risk adverse than a spooked public sector Finance Director.

At least the PCG are doing something, but good luck on finding a willing mug, I mean volunteer, to go court on this, given that they will be publicly labelled as tax dodging scum.

[bracken]

Updates from departments???

I've heard that DWP are requesting deemed payment calculations, lots of contractors at student loans left and through a colleague, I've seen the ridiculous questionnaire that the Home Office are asking contractors to complete within 5 days with their 'line manager' (there are lots of leading questions in there)... How are people in other departments getting on? I'm in Cabinet Office and nothing's been asked of me yet (but I have my defence prepared!)

This uncoordinated approach is a shambles with departments doing their own thing...I'm not sure i can be bothered with the hassle for too much longer...

B

[malvolio]

The really sad thing is that the changes to IR35 in the last Budget to clarify the actual position of "office holders" make the whole thing unnecessary: the Ed Lester case can't happen now. Needless to say, the pen pushers and weebles in the Civil Service are incapable of realising it.

[centurian]

The really sad thing is that the changes to IR35 in the last Budget to clarify the actual position of "office holders" make the whole thing unnecessary: the Ed Lester case can't happen now. Needless to say, the pen pushers and weebles in the Civil Service are incapable of realising it.

Well it can't happen in the public sector, but don't the latest changes for "office holders" apply to the private sector as well.

[malvolio]

Well it can't happen in the public sector, but don't the latest changes for "office holders" apply to the private sector as well.

Yes - but then it always did. The whole thing is the Student Loans Company nd HMRC making an almighty cock up and then the idiot Alexander compounding the problem by "fixing" a problem that doesn't actually exist.

And office holders are defined, the only people who have much to worry about are senior - i.e board level - interims. Jobbing freelances are way out of scope.

[quackhandle]

If a gig is with a City Council am I correct in thinking this would be public sector and thus subject to the hassle ie - proving to client that I am outside of IR35?

qh

[bracken]

Maybe...maybe not...

If a gig is with a City Council am I correct in thinking this would be public sector and thus subject to the hassle ie - proving to client that I am outside of IR35?

qh

Yup, that's public sector but may or may not be implemented in your city council..see quote from page 17 of the may 2012 review

The review will not cover Local Government, however, the Department of Communities and Local Government will write to the Local Government Association. encouraging them to follow the Government’s policy and approach in this matter.

You should be able to work out from your contract whether your client is adopting the policy.

[DaveB]

And here we go....

Although the letter seems a little confused....

Good Afternoon

As per the new Government Tax legislation, <Govt. dept.> has requested <Agency> to make contact with all those interims engaged with <Agency> via a third party agency or Umbrella Company.

The department have requested your permission for <Agency> to be able to provide the Procurement team with your address and personal email address to make direct contact with you regarding this matter.

Please could you respond with your permission for <Agency> to be able to provide this information to the client by Wednesday Friday 28th June 2013.

So I need to reply to them if I am using another agency or an umbrella? Someone, somewhere is getting confused.

Going to sit tight on the basis that I am not covered by the letter as it stands and see what happens.

[bobspud]

And here we go....

Although the letter seems a little confused....



So I need to reply to them if I am using another agency or an umbrella? Someone, somewhere is getting confused.

Going to sit tight on the basis that I am not covered by the letter as it stands and see what happens.

No what they asked you for is the permission to ask your agency for personal details that they are not entitled to hold under the current contract...
Why not tell them to get stuffed?