Reply to: What do you honestly think will happen in 2020?

[PCTNN]

Most people I know are looking at options to find a permanent role. General thought that contracting is dead. No problem with starting contracting again of it turns out not to be. I'd prefer someone else to be the bellwether that HMRC goes after.

My exact position as well.

I'm now almost 100% convinced to go back to permieland for the following reasons:

- the contract market for my skillset in my area seems dead. In the last 6 months I have seen the same number of roles I would normally see in 1 week only 1-2 years ago
- banks have stopped hiring contractors altogether
- the few contracts that sporadically pop up are for the same rate they used to be, just now they are inside ir35
- most of the contracts that are advertised as outside ir35 turn out to be for BAU work therefore at high risk of hmrc wanting to stick their chubby hands in my pockets
- on the other hand, the salaries for permanent roles seem to be rising.

Still 2 months to go in my current gig but if things don't change I'll be pulling the plug. Maybe will go back to contracting again in the future if worthwhile.

[Barry Badrinath]

Sorry for being a winker :

[Barry Badrinath]

Just saw a post by Dave Chaplin about fear stoking in the industry leading to outcomes like the above. That's definitely not what he's been doing eh..

[simes]

I believe between now and April, there will be many knee jerk reactions, broad strokes, and blanket decisions.

But that By April, things may be clearer, will have settled down and for the truly outside IR35 contractors, Life will be largely the same.

[BABABlackSheep]

this...

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ir35-hand.html

[ComplianceLady]

Evidence? If I knew this would true I'd be done with UK clients until someone reigns these people in. More trips overseas for me, I guess.

I work with numerous end clients that have received the same letter, it was mentioned in a conference a few weeks ago by either Andy Chamberlain or Dave Chaplin. It's not a secret I don't think. As far as I know the letters are to 'raise awareness' and 'check preparedness'.

[BR14]

They aren't personal attacks, it's just the same, unending tedium over and over again.

It might be the case it's true but it will be a long shot carried out by an individual or something. Not really warrants you mentioning it 5 times in a morning 7 days a week. Where it might have been an interesting discussion at some point, you've done it to death so probably won't be now.

Just give it a rest.

hear! hear!

[northernladuk]

OK, I can understand that and to calm things down, I apologise for any posts of mine which might be interpreted as personal attacks. However, I believe that to dismiss any use of the ET under any circumstances, is not doing the community any favours. I cannot believe otherwise than there will be circumstances where some individuals would benefit from approaching the ET, just as Susan Winchester did, and just as IPSE are doing now with the case they are supporting.

They aren't personal attacks, it's just the same, unending tedium over and over again.

It might be the case it's true but it will be a long shot carried out by an individual or something. Not really warrants you mentioning it 5 times in a morning 7 days a week. Where it might have been an interesting discussion at some point, you've done it to death so probably won't be now.

Just give it a rest.

[BlueSharp]

I think webberg is frustrated at you constantly going on about ET and FTT, which you've continued to do, 3 times today already.

I can see his point.

I can see both of their points JtB does seem to take any thread off topic and bang on about his ET. However by Weberg's own admission the courts are completely independent a contractor could try that approach. I'm not convinced that post April 2020 a case in the ET will be made weaker if the client determines a role to be inside or the ET will ignore such a determination as being irrelevant. If a client knows that an inside determination will be viewed by the ET that they are at least a worker then that may swing a few determinations to outside and sort out the who pays Employers tax on advertised day rates.

[JohntheBike]

I think webberg is frustrated at you contlstantly going on about ET and FTT, which you've continued to do.

I can see his point.

OK, I can understand that and to calm things down, I apologise for any posts of mine which might be interpreted as personal attacks. However, I believe that to dismiss any use of the ET under any circumstances, is not doing the community any favours. I cannot believe otherwise than there will be circumstances where some individuals would benefit from approaching the ET, just as Susan Winchester did, and just as IPSE are doing now with the case they are supporting.

[northernladuk]

I think webberg is frustrated at you constantly going on about ET and FTT, which you've continued to do, 3 times today already.

I can see his point.

[JohntheBike]

Call it Friday blues or the fact that we seem to have been working at 100% all year or that I've not had a holiday this year but my tolerance level is low.

I have previously acknowledged that Mr JtB took a case to ET and in the very peculiar circumstances that existed, it was a brave call that may or may not have helped.

That was a long time ago. Times have changed. The law then and the law now are different. Post April 2020 any alleged ties between tax and employment will be weaker. Unless and until the Good Work report is enshrined in legislation, that is how it will remain.

The answer to the present and near future changes in the contractor market are NOT to be found in dragging an end client to ET because of the above and because of a lack of legal pathway.

The answers will be much, much more complex and individual.

I therefore find the constant harping back to the above case and the promotion of "go to the ET who will solve all the problems" otiose, boring, illogical and frustrating. Filling the threads with the same message over and over is sad. Worse, it does not move the debate forward. Look at the responses the same old, same old message draws. Aside from those who seem to inhabit a world in which out of court settlements create precedent, where contractors are willing en masse to bite the hand that feeds them, where individuals wield a power in negotiation nobody has seen or witnessed in the last 20 years, the rest of us are entirely unconvinced that the route to Nirvana via ET exists.

Despite proving that this path to an imagined Eden not only does not exist and nobody is willing to use it , we still get the "go to ET" message.

The final straw here for me is the implication that by analysing the situation and acknowledging that HMRC has played and is playing a very good game because 4 or 5 years ago they planned it, I am somehow advancing the HMRC agenda.

For what it's worth, I'm not.

I am presenting the facts and the tax law as I understand it and seeking to show that countering action is possible but that it has to based on a proper understanding of the situation, an appreciation of the complexity and a willingness to take some control and try something different for a while.

If that makes me a secret agent for HMRC - guilty.

As I said at the top. Perhaps I'm temporarily intolerant of seeing the same asinine message and making the same responses week after week.

I have some holiday coming up and it is therefore a good time to leave this entire section "Reform of IR35" alone for a few weeks and regain some perspective.

You may regard this sign off as the flouncing of a diva or the reaction of a frustrated adviser or something in between.

For a while however I'll stick the HMRC section of the website.

Times have changed. The law then and the law now are different

absolutely, and in favour of the individual. A new category of "worker" has emerged and many of the benefits enjoyed by employees are also enjoyed by "workers".

Post April 2020 any alleged ties between tax and employment will be weaker

the ET is independent of the FTT and will look at the issues with regard to the evidence that is presented to them. If they are presented with an SDS from the client which indicates that the individual is being classed as employed for tax purposes, do you really think the ET would ignore that evidence?

If the reality of the engagement were to be judged as self employed by the ET when the client had used CEST to determine that the individual was employed for Tax purposes, do you really think that would have no political repercussions? Look at the case that IPSE is supporting for your answer.

If the reality of the engagement were to be judged as employed by the ET, do you think that would not over-ride the implications for IR35?

So, let's have some intelligent counter arguments to these situations.

[JohntheBike]

[QUOTE=webberg;2682411]My last post on yet another thread all because of facts being ignored or made up or bent to fit a particular bias rather than giving credibility to those who have a degree of professional objectivity.

Let's look at the first statement. Contract runs April to October 2020. An IR35 expert says - in March 2020 - "outside". The end client and agency accept this. In May 2021 HMRC gets data from end client/intermediary. They may enquiries and in October 2021 they say "inside" and claim the money from the fee payer. (I've granted HMRC infinite resources here and expert targeting).

Fee payer pays and perhaps seeks a claim against end client and/or individual. HMRC does not care.

Where then is the challenge for the FTT?

It's not with the contractor because he has no tax dispute.

The fee payer is perhaps going to take a case. Let's say that they are fast and apply for a hearing in October 2021. They might get a hearing in Q4 2022. That is nothing to do with HMRC just a function of a busy Tribunal system.

Even if the fee payer wins (eventually) what possible role could the ET play?

By the time they win it might be 2024 and beyond - too late for ET anyway.

The ET in this scenario is not a win/win. It's irrelevant.

The problem for the contractor is that the end client/agency/fee payer cave in without a fight BECAUSE they have an indemnity from the contractor to pay the tax that HMRC has collected. If that exists and if that happens, ONLY if the fee payer is also the end client might there be the smallest chance of the contractor claiming that they were really in employment. One of the consequence sof that is tax at source. The benefits are small.

The ET in this scenario is not a win/win. It's irrelevant

you are entitled to your opinion.

However, what I can't understand is why so many are eager to dismiss any use of the ET as a non starter, when clearly by supporting the current case in the ET, even IPSE clearly supports that action. Under some circumstances for some individuals, it may be a very valid action to take. Whether or not it would have any influence on the general issues, is clearly not predictable.

[JohntheBike]

OK. JtB is currently busy at an ET, but I'll send him over when he returns...

I'll be retired before then"

[eek]

The GSK letters are simply shaking the money tree to see how much can be collected for no real effort.

No enquiry is made; no status challenged via statute; no need to even engage HMRC if you choose not to.

And that's my point - there will be a lot of shaking the money tree letters going out...

Which may or may not lead to enquiries being made - of course we don't know if the letters will lead to enquiries - only time will tell.