Ack, just lost my post and citations, so I'll summarise without the justifications.
1) This legislation is aimed at contractors, it does so by targetting MSCs.
2) An MSC is not clearly defined. I can probably make a case that my web hosting company is an MSC. I could use services where my Googlerank is monitored and tweaked with payment made based on success. However, I could equally argue the opposite and that's just using the tests listed.
3) Apparently brought in because of Eastern European contractors. I thought there were only 13,000 of them, but apparently one or two more popped over.
4) JSD/NW, etc are exempt from this.
5) Operating as a Ltd using JSD and co means you operate as you did prior to April under the same conditions, i.e. IR35 compliance is still an issue but there are no new rules. In saying that, see point 2, there may be practical considerations.
- 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!
Reply to: Confused!
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 "Confused!"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Nixon Williams
As for advised to avoid us, by whom? - Giant?
But they have then taken a completely different stance when speaking to accountants.
I believe James May posts on here so maybe he could clarify their stance.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by beerbarrelSimon, I am merely a disillusioned contractor; quite clearly the major accounting firms advising Giant disagree with you. Giant had nothing to gain in leaving us all in the lurch, so they must have believed the advice they were given?
SJD, NW, 360, Brooksons & JSA are all on their list of probable MSCs and we have been advised to avoid you.
Giant were slow to respond to the proposed changes and when they did devise something it clearly failed to comply with the new measures. They have everything to gain from pushing people into their umbrella, as Simon has said they are easier to administer and more profitable.
As for advised to avoid us, by whom? - Giant?
Alan
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simonsjdaccountancyCheck with the PCG Joel, you'll find all our offices are accredited by the PCG.
Unlike your Company.
And we are accredited by the PCG.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by beerbarrelMy agency's concern is that, using SJD as an example, although I might genuinely be in business SJD may have other clients who are not. If you are deemed by HMRC to be a MSC Provider in the future then I will be classed as an MSC because I use your services.
But, the 64,000 dollar question becomes will an agency take the risk? I don't know how it will pan out. A possible result is that all contractors may effectively need to move to paye (rather like Gordon intended with IR35 of course).
He knows he cannot introduce specifically targetted legislation, but he also knows a climate of fear and uncertainly may achieve close to the same aim.
The fact that a "regular" company is "legal" won't help anyone if agencies are too scared of the risk. Exactly the same scenario as being self employed.
Leave a comment:
-
I read the Giant press release carefully and I agree that neither they nor anyone else I have read is suggesting that this is the end of the PSC that is genuinely in business. Indeed I never suggested otherwise.
There seems to be agreement that it is the end of the MSC Provider who is 'promoting and facilitating'. So the likes of SJD, NW, & etc, who make it easy for contractors who not genuinely in business to operate are the focus of this legislation.
I cannot find a reference from Treasury saying otherwise?
My agency's concern is that, using SJD as an example, although I might genuinely be in business SJD may have other clients who are not. If you are deemed by HMRC to be a MSC Provider in the future then I will be classed as an MSC because I use your services. My penalties will date back to 6th April 2007. You cannot give me a guarantee against tax losses I might suffer as a result as that would definitely make you an MSC Provider.
It seems that the best bet is to use a brolly in the short term until this mess is sorted out. A PSC provided by SJD, NW, 360, Brooksons or JSA seems to be unecessarily risky since there are clearly conflicting opinions amongst the leading accounting firms.
Leave a comment:
-
If you read Giants PR carefully you will see that the individual advising them did not say all would be caught - he said:
"This is the end for companies specialising in promoting and facilitating tax advantageous services to one man limited companies"
Which is exactly what the Treasury say, and exactly what Giant were trying to do with their scheme. The reason for the Treasury including this was to catch the likes of Giant and Brooksons who were in the process of moving en masse the people who were with their composites/MSC schemes simply being moved over to another "scheme". You will see from the withdrawn Giant scheme that Giant were still proposing administering the bank account etc etc - this is what caught them out, not some altruist motive to somehow save the innocent contractor from losing his house. It was scaremongering at best. You will notice that no other firm/authority/agency has agreed with Giant's interpretation - including the Treasury themselves!!
You will notice that the Giant quoted source does not say this is the end of accountants being able to provide services to One Man Ltd cos does he? If you assume that accountants such as us, JSA, NW and so on are somehow caught by the regulations then you must apply that to all accountants - simply the number of clients they act for could not be the determining factor.
Finally, Giant had an awful lot to gain by issuing that PR - a client operating under an umbrella is far more profitable than operating under their own Ltd Co from the accountants point of view.
Originally posted by beerbarrelSimon, I am merely a disillusioned contractor; quite clearly the major accounting firms advising Giant disagree with you. Giant had nothing to gain in leaving us all in the lurch, so they must have believed the advice they were given?
I was with Powerhouse and I am hacked off with the whole situation and the uncertainty. I will be earning 20% less this month than I did last month, but I am not prepared to risk bankruptcy by going PSC.
I have been reading all the articles on here, ITContractor and Shout99. My agency attended a lawspeed seminar last week and they confirmed that even accounting practices could be caught.
SJD, NW, 360, Brooksons & JSA are all on their list of probable MSCs and we have been advised to avoid you.
Leave a comment:
-
Simon, I am merely a disillusioned contractor; quite clearly the major accounting firms advising Giant disagree with you. Giant had nothing to gain in leaving us all in the lurch, so they must have believed the advice they were given?
I was with Powerhouse and I am hacked off with the whole situation and the uncertainty. I will be earning 20% less this month than I did last month, but I am not prepared to risk bankruptcy by going PSC.
I have been reading all the articles on here, ITContractor and Shout99. My agency attended a lawspeed seminar last week and they confirmed that even accounting practices could be caught.
SJD, NW, 360, Brooksons & JSA are all on their list of probable MSCs and we have been advised to avoid you.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by beerbarrelgosh, its like the charge of the Light Brigade, here come SJD and NW claiming exemptions because they are merely providing accounting services.
Gentlemen, you are wrong, you are exempted from the exemption because a discernable part of your business is the promotion of MSCs. Please don't insult us by claiming that promoting a pay calculator demonstrating how much tax is saved by tax-motivated incorporation is a 'normal' service provided by an accounting practics and, of course, you cannot claim that your web site is one that a normal accounting practice would publish.
You need to read the giant press release - at least the light has dawned with them. You are placing all your PSC clients in a perilous position. I thought giant were bad but they don't show the level of arrogance you display.
Beware SJD and NW are both MSC Providers under the new legislation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by beerbarrelgosh, its like the charge of the Light Brigade, here come SJD and NW claiming exemptions because they are merely providing accounting services.
Gentlemen, you are wrong, you are exempted from the exemption because a discernable part of your business is the promotion of MSCs. Please don't insult us by claiming that promoting a pay calculator demonstrating how much tax is saved by tax-motivated incorporation is a 'normal' service provided by an accounting practics and, of course, you cannot claim that your web site is one that a normal accounting practice would publish.
You need to read the giant press release - at least the light has dawned with them. You are placing all your PSC clients in a perilous position. I thought giant were bad but they don't show the level of arrogance you display.
Beware SJD and NW are both MSC Providers under the new legislation.
Right, off to check the PCG website again to see if some genius has figured out where the hell I stand.
To Gordon, you're a four letter word beginning with c and more importantly a 7 letter word beginning with h and ending in istory. The scary thing is I have no idea and no way of knowing if your successor will be any better. I'll chance it. That is the extent of my ire.
Leave a comment:
-
BeerbarrelGentlemen, you are wrong, you are exempted from the exemption because a discernable part of your business is the promotion of MSCs. Please don't insult us by claiming that promoting a pay calculator demonstrating how much tax is saved by tax-motivated incorporation is a 'normal' service provided by an accounting practics and, of course, you cannot claim that your web site is one that a normal accounting practice would publish.
I just wonder what is so radically different now from the previous structure you had under Giant.
Robot
Leave a comment:
-
gosh, its like the charge of the Light Brigade, here come SJD and NW claiming exemptions because they are merely providing accounting services.
Gentlemen, you are wrong, you are exempted from the exemption because a discernable part of your business is the promotion of MSCs. Please don't insult us by claiming that promoting a pay calculator demonstrating how much tax is saved by tax-motivated incorporation is a 'normal' service provided by an accounting practics and, of course, you cannot claim that your web site is one that a normal accounting practice would publish.
You need to read the giant press release - at least the light has dawned with them. You are placing all your PSC clients in a perilous position. I thought giant were bad but they don't show the level of arrogance you display.
Beware SJD and NW are both MSC Providers under the new legislation.
Leave a comment:
-
Look it up but they are no longer legal from 6th april so you need to either go ltd or with a brolly
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by beerbarrelInteresting, didn't realise SJD weren't ICAEW regulated.
They give the impression that they are the font of all knowledge on this site, how many of their accountants are PCG (QA) accredited, bet its only 1!!!!
Unlike your Company which is not accredited at all.
Leave a comment:
Partners
- 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: