malvolio you don't have to join the PCG to get the level of advice they offer through their helplines.
Most simple home legal policies costing far less than the annual PCG membership can provide the same if not better level of professional advice. The advice is also given unwritten so useless if you intend using it as evidence to build a case.
As for IR35 review most qualified accountants offer it as part of their fees which are tax deductable whilst the PCG fees are not.
- 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: PCG worth it?
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 "PCG worth it?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostThere are some shiny pie charts in the latest Freelancing MAtters that demonstrates it very well. They will be on the PCG website soon as well, I'll drop a link when they are.
Don't be pathetic, you don't need to pay to see their promotional material, it is a legitimate business expense and it's not even a commercial organisation. Why the hell would they need to scam anyone?
It's not a "Professional Body", what are the qualifications for membership?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by r0bly0ns View PostIf it's a legitimate business expense why is it not deductable?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostDon't be pathetic, you don't need to pay to see their promotional material, it is a legitimate business expense and it's not even a commercial organisation. Why the hell would they need to scam anyone?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mad-dog View PostWell sorry to disappoint malvolio, but apparently the PCG can only advise on whether a contract falls in or outside IR35. They can't apparently advise on liabilities on parties wanting to end restrictive contracts. Nor do they seem to want to help P4 contractors get any answers to resolve the mess they find themselves in. Instead they promote their umbrella 'partner' to lure P4 contractors into a bigger mess trying to walk away from the P4 mess.
The whole thing stinks.
And don't go on at me about P4, I've been banging that particular drum ever since it kicked off on here (and for a long time before that, if the truth be told). But there are legal restrictions on what can and can't be done. AFAIK, there are 74 P4 clients in the PCG, why aren't they asking their own questions directly? Email [email protected] and tell them, as per http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?...945&Itemid=566
Leave a comment:
-
Well sorry to disappoint malvolio, but apparently the PCG can only advise on whether a contract falls in or outside IR35. They can't apparently advise on liabilities on parties wanting to end restrictive contracts. Nor do they seem to want to help P4 contractors get any answers to resolve the mess they find themselves in. Instead they promote their umbrella 'partner' to lure P4 contractors into a bigger mess trying to walk away from the P4 mess.
The whole thing stinks.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lewis View PostI'd like to see those figures
Originally posted by not_very_hugebrainWell to see the figures (and find out why it's not a proper business expense) you first have to pay the money. Doesn't this sort of set-up just scream SCAM?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vhadiant View PostI thought PCG provides several business insurance thus it is a business expenses. Can you
please let us know why this is not allowed as business expenses?
If you're a PCG member, go on to their fora and the full explanation can be found on the Member Services board, under "PCG Subs and tax", posted by neilg (who's our FD).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostI wish - there's been a long argument about this on the PCG boards as well.
As best as I understand it, PCG is not on the list of HMRC approved companies that would then permit the subscription to be offset against CT. The case history goes back to 1913 but in essence it can't be argued with.
please let us know why this is not allowed as business expenses?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vhadiant View PostMalvolio, why can't you offset it against CT? Can I pay using my own money and expense it as business expense? This expense is wholly & neccessarily for the business and only the business. Can you please explain?
As best as I understand it, PCG is not on the list of HMRC approved companies that would then permit the subscription to be offset against CT. The case history goes back to 1913 but in essence it can't be argued with.
To get on that list, PCG would need to provide the names, addresses and trading details of all it members (15,000 of them). The management quite rightly thought we might object to that.
End result is you can still pay for it through the company, that bit isn't a problem, but you should not include it as an expense to be offset against CT at year end. So for a PCGPlus member like me, you effetively get stuck with an extra £42 a year CT. I'd rather pay that than let Hector have all my details.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostYes, most do. The rationale is that it is an expense you wouldn't need if the company didn't exist, therefore it meets the "wholly and neccessarily" rule.
Although we just learned that YourCo can't offset it agasint CT, which is £40 a year down the tubes...
Leave a comment:
-
Hmmmm, failed agency cover eh? That could have helped me save near on £25k a few years ago... While I know it's not a huge amount of money in the big scheme of things it does seem a little wasteful to be double-covered; I'll have a think about it and maybe join up over the weekend.
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: