• 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!

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.

Previously on "More reasons for blanket inside assessments?"

Collapse

  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Clients that want contractors will bother because, well, that is the law. Clients that don't, won't, obviously. Of the subset that don't, some will offer FTCs. Of the subset that don't offer FTCs, few will operate payroll themselves, I expect. That is my point. So most of that article is pointless and your OP about there now being "more reasons" to make a blanket inside determination is not coherent.

    There is "a" reason to avoid contractors altogether, namely that it's their responsibility to make a determination now, but that reason has existed since the proposal was announced and has nothing to do with "blanketing". Blanketing means issuing an SDS that says "this contract is inside" and repeating that for a group of contracts. Umbrella companies have employees. So I think the confusion partly stems from your confused use of terminology and partly from nothing having changed recently.
    OK, I was just using the term "blanketing" in a loose sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
    yes, but I would contend that clients wouldn't want any hassle, so they are likely to offload all roles to a brolly. It's an easier decision rather than attempting any assessments at all. Granted, they'd have to weigh up the possible negative affects on their business, but I guess short term considerations would prevail.
    Clients that want contractors will bother because, well, that is the law. Clients that don't, won't, obviously. Of the subset that don't, some will offer FTCs. Of the subset that don't offer FTCs, few will operate payroll themselves, I expect. That is my point. So most of that article is pointless and your OP about there now being "more reasons" to make a blanket inside determination is not coherent.

    There is "a" reason to avoid contractors altogether, namely that it's their responsibility to make a determination now, but that reason has existed since the proposal was announced and has nothing to do with "blanketing". Blanketing means issuing an SDS that says "this contract is inside" and repeating that for a group of contracts. Umbrella companies have employees. So I think the confusion partly stems from your confused use of terminology and partly from nothing having changed recently.

    Leave a comment:


  • SussexSeagull
    replied
    At least HR system providers might make a few quid on the back of the IR35 changes doing updates!

    Every cloud, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Seems to be some confusion here. For outside contracts, none of this admin applies. For inside contracts, I doubt they are going to bother with payroll. They will push that off to an umbrella or offer FTCs (proper temp employment w/ standard PAYE accounting). Either way, I think this article describes a massive disincentive to blanket inside *and* to handle the payroll internally.
    yes, but I would contend that clients wouldn't want any hassle, so they are likely to offload all roles to a brolly. It's an easier decision rather than attempting any assessments at all. Granted, they'd have to weigh up the possible negative affects on their business, but I guess short term considerations would prevail.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Seems to be some confusion here. For outside contracts, none of this admin applies. For inside contracts, I doubt they are going to bother with payroll. They will push that off to an umbrella or offer FTCs (proper temp employment w/ standard PAYE accounting). Either way, I think this article describes a massive disincentive to blanket inside *and* to handle the payroll internally.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    Isn't that what JtB said?
    I thought so. To clarify, the clients will say to themselves that everyone is inside and to avoid the hassles, every contractor who wishes to provide services to them must do so through a brolly.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Isn't that what JtB said?

    Leave a comment:


  • wattaj
    replied
    Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
    so blanket inside assessments and everybody through a brolly?
    Not necessarily. Why go through all the pain of a meaningless "assessment" process? I would simply state that as of X date I will not accept LtdCo contractors and everyone should now go via a brolly if I were a client. Job done.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    As you say...
    so blanket inside assessments and everybody through a brolly?

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    As you say...

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    started a topic More reasons for blanket inside assessments?

    More reasons for blanket inside assessments?

    From ‘off-payroll’ to on-payroll: It’s not simple | AccountingWEB

    looks like a minefield for clients

Working...
X