Originally posted by JohntheBike
View Post
- 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: Public sector retrospectively reviewing
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 "Public sector retrospectively reviewing"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostThat's just complete bollocks. The idea that IPSE would maliciously or otherwise veto your claim is paranoid delusion. However, if your trust in them is that far eroded, it probably is best that you have found yourself another provider.
and yes, my trust in them had been seriously eroded to the point where I decided not to renew my membership this year. Given that you have no idea of the accumulated details which led me to this conclusion, I guess your opinion has no merit.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostThat's the crux really, what is informal today can become very formal tomorrow with the right strategy (with money and resources) in place.
I don't trust HMRC any further than I can throw them on this.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post...there could always be a chance that IPSE would veto any claim made by a member even before it got as far as the insurers.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ComplianceLady View PostKind of yes. The intent at this point is to just switch contracts and HMRC have given an informal nod to the fact they won't pursue the public sector body (as the idea is HMRC didn't have enough time/resource to fully support each body with guidance) but there's no mention of contracts ongoing now that flip from outside to inside that were in place pre-2017 (when the contractor was liable).
I don't trust HMRC any further than I can throw them on this.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by CheeseSlice View PostAny links about this? Its quite a sweeping statement.. does the whole of the public sector act in unison like this?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ComplianceLady View PostI'm aware that the public sector have confirmed they have started to re-review the contracts assessed since 2017 with the understanding that those judged outside will be inside.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hobosapien View PostI wonder if any re-review with guidance from HMRC will also uncover contracts blanket deemed inside that should be outside. I won't hold my breath on that.
At least the retrospective aspect of active contracts is being covered in that the change of status doesn't affect the contract prior to the new review date due to 'new guidance' from HMRC, so a new contract is offered to differentiate between the old and new status.
Seems fair to me, hopefully they're learning from the fallout of the loan charge retrospective action, and fits with the conceptual practice of not needing to apply a status change mid contract (causing retrospective tax for the period prior to the change) as the contract is terminated and a new one issued.
I wonder if any changes to CEST would also trigger a re-review situation (otherwise what is this 'new guidance'?), and if so how often HMRC are changing CEST to create more work and uncertainty amongst those using it for the initial status determination.
I am now considering whether the higher tax levels predicted in Y1 are actually due to most contracts being inside and they drop off in Y2 due to a predicted drop in contracting. Previously I thought they were looking at historical gains but I'm not as sure. Looking at the Queen's Speech, whilst brief, it does seem to indicate a desired progression towards 1 form of 'work' in all aspects.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostWhy do you think that I’ve stuck with IPSE for the last 4 years and will do so for the next 2?
Leave a comment:
-
I wonder if any re-review with guidance from HMRC will also uncover contracts blanket deemed inside that should be outside. I won't hold my breath on that.
At least the retrospective aspect of active contracts is being covered in that the change of status doesn't affect the contract prior to the new review date due to 'new guidance' from HMRC, so a new contract is offered to differentiate between the old and new status.
Seems fair to me, hopefully they're learning from the fallout of the loan charge retrospective action, and fits with the conceptual practice of not needing to apply a status change mid contract (causing retrospective tax for the period prior to the change) as the contract is terminated and a new one issued.
I wonder if any changes to CEST would also trigger a re-review situation (otherwise what is this 'new guidance'?), and if so how often HMRC are changing CEST to create more work and uncertainty amongst those using it for the initial status determination.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BoredBloke View PostBut that's going to be based on HMRC's biased view of IR35 - the case laws hasn't changed. Surely somebody at some point is going to challenge this inside review in the courts.
Leave a comment:
-
But that's going to be based on HMRC's biased view of IR35 - the case laws hasn't changed. Surely somebody at some point is going to challenge this inside review in the courts.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TwoWolves View PostThis gives the impression that there will be no retrospective consequences if you are forcibly flipped outside -> inside. Did I understand that correctly?
I'm not sure how many there'd be and how palateable pursual would be for HMRC either commercially or legally.
I didn't and don't see the risk as being retrospective pursuit of tax, the main take I got from it was that it seems all those public sector clients that did case by case assessments and have contractors working outside are being 'corrected' and told that they're aligned with all other public sector clients plus private sector (thus allaying fears of contractors moving en masse). Seems like a strategic move in my view.
Leave a comment:
-
This gives the impression that there will be no retrospective consequences if you are forcibly flipped outside -> inside. Did I understand that correctly?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View PostWhat's irksome about this is that anyone who had IR35 tax investigation for a previous period and who did not have it now, then they couldn't claim. It almost means that you'd have to maintain such insurance for the maximum period that HMRC could investigate retrospectively for.
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: