Reply to: Results of the public sector consultation is up

[gables]

The draft legislation makes it clear that the liability lies with the fee payer. We will only know for sure on Monday when the final legislation is published - it would make sense to leave the liability for getting it wrong with the person that gets it wrong, but nothing in this legislation makes sense

It truly is unbelievable really, I'd have spat my coffee out in the meeting room had I been party to that conversation 🙂

[RonBW]

A) which body would pay the fine if a contract is deemed inside 35 but treated as outside

The draft legislation makes it clear that the liability lies with the fee payer. We will only know for sure on Monday when the final legislation is published - it would make sense to leave the liability for getting it wrong with the person that gets it wrong, but nothing in this legislation makes sense

[eek]

Trying to find the answers to these on here,but can't:

A) which body would pay the fine if a contract is deemed inside 35 but treated as outside , and

B) who actually pays the employers national insurance to HMRC . Isn't it the public sector body ? Not the agency

b) it's paid to HMRC by the last person before the PSC, so the agency...

[seeourbee]

Trying to find the answers to these on here,but can't:

A) which body would pay the fine if a contract is deemed inside 35 but treated as outside , and

B) who actually pays the employers national insurance to HMRC . Isn't it the public sector body ? Not the agency

[lucyclarityumbrella]

The 'payer', which in most cases is the agency will be responsible for deducting and indeed responsible in the event of mis-classification.

The contractor cannot in theory get it wrong, as they no longer decide.

And following on from the discussions in the initial IR35 PS consultation, the only true way for every party to be safe is for all parties in the chain to complete the test (when it finally emerges) and that includes the contractor (especially if they fancy arguing the case )! HMRC said that if there is a case whereby results differ in the chain, then they would look at all parties to decide where the chain fell down and if/who supplied false information.

As you all said - the likelihood of the client or agency taking this risk is highly unlikely. Maybe it's time for some PSLs to be reviewed

[sal]

+1. I will be asking for 20% more for a local contract. London would require over £1000 unless they cover all expenses

Well it's only natural, since you (we) are going to be an "employee"

[eek]

20% thats very conservative. My rate looks like it needs to almost double. (require a lot of expenses as I commute long distances / stay away a lot. )

+1. I will be asking for 20% more for a local contract. London would require over £1000 unless they cover all expenses

[MPwannadecentincome]

HMRC love to double-down on disaster though; it's what they do best Also, conveniently, when the PS is deserted, "levelling the playing field" will be an easy sell to politicians.

and after most have left 90% of all contractors remaining in public sector will be paying full taxes and NI - HMRC goal achieved!

[bobspud]

I thought that as well, I suspect that UK PLC won't want to be upping wage costs to international firms by 20% in the post-Brexit apocalypse. At least not for a few years.

20% thats very conservative. My rate looks like it needs to almost double. (require a lot of expenses as I commute long distances / stay away a lot. )

[jamesbrown]

I thought that as well, I suspect that UK PLC won't want to be upping wage costs to international firms by 20% in the post-Brexit apocalypse. At least not for a few years.

I think that might've been the case with Hamface, but May has consistently shown that she's willing to ignore business when it's contrary to her priorities, and being tough on avoidance is easy territory. Plus, the economy is fine. Autumn Budget for an announcement, I reckon, otherwise it's several years away, and they seem awfully keen on protecting that "25m" (read 440m). The only thing likely to scupper it is more fundamental reform, post-Taylor, whether involving apportionment rules for close companies or something else.

[Andy Hallett]

HMRC love to double-down on disaster though; it's what they do best Also, conveniently, when the PS is deserted, "levelling the playing field" will be an easy sell to politicians.

I thought that as well, I suspect that UK PLC won't want to be upping wage costs to international firms by 20% in the post-Brexit apocalypse. At least not for a few years.

[jamesbrown]

Not convinced it will hit private sector now. I was last year, but having seen what a disaster this is shaping up to be think it might be shelved.

HMRC love to double-down on disaster though; it's what they do best Also, conveniently, when the PS is deserted, "levelling the playing field" will be an easy sell to politicians.

[Andy Hallett]

To be honest it wasn't you that I was aiming out S3 are big enough and bright enough to avoid such problems...

I note that you didn't argue over the other point....

Not convinced it will hit private sector now. I was last year, but having seen what a disaster this is shaping up to be think it might be shelved.

[jamesbrown]

We've got enough experience to know what is outside and outside. Chances are we'll be supporting clients in the decision and helping shape working practices for those genuinely outside.

As a company we are committed to PSCs as a legitimate vehicle. When and If it rolls out more generally we'll do the same.

As an international company we deal with these changes everywhere else on an annual basis. The market will be disrupted for a while, we'll adapt and then the classic supply and demand equation will kick in.

Good for you. The one upside of having the fee payer take all the risk is that your clients are quite likely to listen to you

[eek]

HMRC have got that one covered as well. The Offshore Intermediaries Legislation has a transfer of debt provision. Agencies have a chain liability if the tax is subsequently not paid. Hook in the RTI reporting and it looks like a strategy!

We've had a PSL since the MSC legislation in 2007, any exceptions to that list are signed off by me personally and if there is a risk we'll drop the deal.

Plenty of familiar names in the EBT forum that I've stopped contractors using.

To be honest it wasn't you that I was aiming out S3 are big enough and bright enough to avoid such problems...

I note that you didn't argue over the other point....