Reply to: Arctic Systems - how did they get on at each level?

[Lance]

Mind you, seems to work to the extent that CUK gives them their safe spaces, even though they've been underpaying for the benefits, services and opportunites provided by life in the UK for years.

FTFY

[northernladyuk]

Schemes were just simply dodgy. I don't have much sympathy. I looked at them years ago and decided it was too high a risk.
As for PSCs..... If HMRC really wanted to get more tax from them then why wouldn't they do what most of Europe does?

Agreed. Some of the scheme people like to give the whole 'First they came for the offshore loans in a fast depreciating currency contractors' spiel, to try to create a sense of solidarity with honest PSC contractors.

Mind you, seems to work to the extent that CUK gives them their safe spaces, even though they've been undercutting honest PSC contractors for years.

[malvolio]

On the latter point you are correct. But it is already happening. I gave four examples ^^^ up there somewhere. There are many others too. There is no doubt what so ever in my mind about Arctic #2. Where we appear to differ is that I think it is already well underway and that Arctic #2 is by stealth and salami tactics. Not a show piece law suit.

And as I said,several organisations are already fighting for mandatory IR35 not to be applied to the private sector; small people like the CBI for instance. The emphasis on this area in the press is one manifestation of how much work is going on

Your representatives at IPSE seem quite unable to recognise this (by design that is exactly what HMG want) and have no idea what they can do anyway.

They fully recognise it and know exactly what should be done. However as long as HMRC are allowed by HMG to publish misleading and uncorroborated information, that will go nowhere. It doesn't mean they won't keep trying to get their point - and that of several other contributors to the IR35 Forum - heard

Actually, they can do nothing. Even a rear guard action will fail, as per recent episodes.

No idea what you're on about. Care to explain?

I am mighty glad I chucked it all in. I am sorry for those following me. Meanwhile TPTB at IPSE are still arguing amongst themselves about "the rules" at their rather pathetic internet forum at every given opportunity. Everyone else has now left.

Haven't seen that at all. Nobody is talking about the rules and haven't been for ages. I will agree their forums are a shadow of what they once were, but things evolve; there are several other channels that are being used.

OK, so not all wrong. You got one minor thing partially correct. Sorry...

[northernladuk]

citation needed

Not needed. He's wrong.

[Lance]

I really do think that some posters need to remind themselves of the fact that because they say something is wrong, it doesn't actually make it so. Nor does saying something is right make it so either. This attitude is actually firmly in place elsewhere too and it serves nobody any good except for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives to those who exercise this ridiculous attitude.

citation needed

[Fred Bloggs]

I really do think that some posters need to remind themselves of the fact that because they say something is wrong, it doesn't actually make it so. Nor does saying something is right make it so either. This attitude is actually firmly in place elsewhere too and it serves nobody any good except for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives to those who exercise this ridiculous attitude.

[northernladuk]

That doesn't explain what post is rubbish though - but given that the poster didn't state why he felt the points were inaccurate with valid reasons I am following HMRC's processes while dealing with such responses - their would either ignore the response completely or if required reuse it to show that some people agreed with their viewpoint...

Just helping FB see Mal's post without having him having to press view.

[eek]

Here you go Fred.

That doesn't explain what post is rubbish though - but given that the poster didn't state why he felt the points were inaccurate with valid reasons I am following HMRC's processes while dealing with such responses - their would either ignore the response completely or if required reuse it to show that some people agreed with their viewpoint...

[northernladuk]

What a load of bollocks...

Congratulations on a post where every single point is wrong.

Here you go Fred.

[Fred Bloggs]

This +100. HMRC have learnt a lot and are playing a far more co-ordinated game than they used to. Look at your examples above (ignoring the dividend tax).

1) Tightening up of Expense rules using Supervision / Direction / control - attempted extension to limited companies but changed to be only if inside IR35.
2) public sector IR35 clearly defined and scoped to remove any means of legal attack...
3) flat rate vat changes - targeted at employment only companies....

And the next set of changes will take a similar approach. Thankfully it won't destroy contracting as a whole but it will make it far harder for the typical bum on seat, easily substitutable contractor....

Thanks. Unfortunately, it's rather unlike me, but I was tempted to click on show that other reply. It just reminded me why I keep the poster on ignore.

[eek]

They (HMRC/HMG) have learned. They now have different tactics. Loss of expenses, dividend tax, flat rate VAT, public sector IR35. To name just four where your esteemed representatives just rolled over. OK sure, they'll say they didn't. Your bank account tells a very different story. The cups of tea in Darwin street are the only thing they got from there. Perhaps a custard cream too, on a good day.

Arctic was THE defining high point. But you can't live off that reputation forever.

This +100. HMRC have learnt a lot and are playing a far more co-ordinated game than they used to. Look at your examples above (ignoring the dividend tax).

1) Tightening up of Expense rules using Supervision / Direction / control - attempted extension to limited companies but changed to be only if inside IR35.
2) public sector IR35 clearly defined and scoped to remove any means of legal attack...
3) flat rate vat changes - targeted at employment only companies....

And the next set of changes will take a similar approach. Thankfully it won't destroy contracting as a whole but it will make it far harder for the typical bum on seat, easily substitutable contractor....

[malvolio]

On the latter point you are correct. But it is already happening. I gave four examples ^^^ up there somewhere. There are many others too. There is no doubt what so ever in my mind about Arctic #2. Where we appear to differ is that I think it is already well underway and that Arctic #2 is by stealth and salami tactics. Not a show piece law suit. Your representatives at IPSE seem quite unable to recognise this (by design that is exactly what HMG want) and have no idea what they can do anyway. Actually, they can do nothing. Even a rear guard action will fail, as per recent episodes. I am mighty glad I chucked it all in. I am sorry for those following me. Meanwhile TPTB at IPSE are still arguing amongst themselves about "the rules" at their rather pathetic internet forum at every given opportunity. Everyone else has now left.

What a load of bollocks...

Congratulations on a post where every single point is wrong.

[Fred Bloggs]

It is now incredibly difficult to fight HMRC. And now they do use very different tactics.

At the moment they are attacking schemes. And PSCs. The vast majority of schemes are lost causes.

Soon they will be coming after the rest. At that point it will be ArcticSystems2.

On the latter point you are correct. But it is already happening. I gave four examples ^^^ up there somewhere. There are many others too. There is no doubt what so ever in my mind about Arctic #2. Where we appear to differ is that I think it is already well underway and that Arctic #2 is by stealth and salami tactics. Not a show piece law suit. Your representatives at IPSE seem quite unable to recognise this (by design that is exactly what HMG want) and have no idea what they can do anyway. Actually, they can do nothing. Even a rear guard action will fail, as per recent episodes. I am mighty glad I chucked it all in. I am sorry for those following me. Meanwhile TPTB at IPSE are still arguing amongst themselves about "the rules" at their rather pathetic internet forum at every given opportunity. Everyone else has now left.

[Lance]

At the moment they are attacking schemes. And PSCs. The vast majority of schemes are lost causes.

Schemes were just simply dodgy. I don't have much sympathy. I looked at them years ago and decided it was too high a risk.
As for PSCs..... If HMRC really wanted to get more tax from them then why wouldn't they do what most of Europe does?

Answer: They don't want to.

Why: Good question. Is it because they value what a genuine freelance workforce does? Is it because deep-down they want to do it themselves later in their career?

If anyone knows why I'd be interested as it would provide some insight into what they'd do next.

[malvolio]

Maybe, but the increasing press attention is not happening by accident. The industry is already fighting back. At some point someone will take notice of the ever increasing mountain of evidence that the PS IR35 changes are costing HMT a lot of money rather than saving it and "fairness" as an economic policy is a non-starter...

TfL have raised an interesting point as well. An initial target completion of 2020 has now been revised to one of 2019 so clearly the impact of the loss of "agency" contractors is having no effect. Aren't we clever. Except, of course, that the real revised target was 2018 and they are processing double the number of trains at a time than originally planned for the 2020 completion date....