Originally posted by Paralytic
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Options at end of 2 year contract (ending March 2020)"
Collapse
-
They already can link people to to off pay role positions via agency reporting requirements.
Leave a comment:
-
They’ll need to get a couple of contractors in to link up the data.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cirrus View PostTo go back to previous contracts HMRC would have to be given lists by the clients because they do not get any information which links a client to a PSC to a director. Not that I can think of. They they might try attacking new umbrella 'employees' but they wouldn't immediately see which of those could be connected to previous assignments (the client won't be reported normally). It would not be straightforward at all to identify targets. For reasons I can't go into, I suspect HMRC would have tremendous difficulty getting the necessary management information.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostWhy wouldn't they go after them if they believe they were incorrect all the time?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cirrus View PostPersonally I really cannot believe the Revenue will go after people retrospectively.
They must be so over-the-moon that they've finally won after all these years of miserable failure they'll be only too pleased to bank all the extra tax flooding in from PAYE. Rather than retreating into the past I suspect they'll be shining the radar for GSK-like attacks on any big lumps of non-compliers. Their new weapons are so much more fun to use to annihilate the scummy evaders.
Leave a comment:
-
Exterminate, exterminate!
Personally I really cannot believe the Revenue will go after people retrospectively.
They must be so over-the-moon that they've finally won after all these years of miserable failure they'll be only too pleased to bank all the extra tax flooding in from PAYE. Rather than retreating into the past I suspect they'll be shining the radar for GSK-like attacks on any big lumps of non-compliers. Their new weapons are so much more fun to use to annihilate the scummy evaders.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kesteral View PostYou're right, I was thinking this related to IR35 based on what some of my contractor colleagues have told me (perhaps they were confused with client 2 year rules). Obviously that was incorrect, but I'd appreciate if anyone can help with the original question, instead of criticising my IR35 knowledge, as if I knew everything I wouldn't be posting on this forum.
But TBF, with such a lack of knowledge around IR35 I'd say you want to be well away from this client before any determination is made to avoid whatever problems you've made yourself in the past 2 years. Thing is, because you don't understand IR35 you won't understand the risks or why you should do that.
But anyway, read the sticky.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Major Hassle View PostHe’s thinking of the 24 month rule for expenses, which isn’t as black and white as it sounds and has been discussed to death on this forum
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Major Hassle View PostHe’s thinking of the 24 month rule for expenses, which isn’t as black and white as it sounds and has been discussed to death on this forum
Been at two clients where I hit the 2 year rule and had to leave and all the permatractors believe it to be because of the 'IR35 limit'. Most of these guys aren't aware enough of the 2 year expenses rule to mix it up.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: