Respond to govt subcommittee
Govt committee on IR35 is calling for evidence from organisations and individuals. Let's do our part in spreading awareness and submitting evidence. To me the fact that Clients are putting blanket inside IR35 for all roles and refusing to work with PSC altogether is an indication that this isn't well thought through.
Finance Bill Sub-Committee - submit a written submission - UK Parliament
Please submit your views and share with your network.
- 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!
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 "What good might this Lords committee review do"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by PTP View PostDon't quite think that would work. As mentioned in another thread recently, there's loads of ways that anything digital can still be traced back to it's origin
Leave a comment:
-
If someone tells someone else that their actions will adversely affect thousands of people, dont you think it would have rather more impact if a few thousand said the same thing independently?
Stop being paranoid and start writing in. Utterly pointless leaving it to the other guys. Unless of course you dont want to fight back.
Leave a comment:
-
[QUOTE=TheInvoicer;2726045]Originally posted by eatenrifles View PostI had a reply from my MP which included a letter from Jesse Norman to 'address my concerns'.
According to the Treasury:
.[*]There is no evidence of large corporations taking blanket decisions.
Absolute pish, again shows the scale of lying that goes on. We see it in ir35 and just makes you realise this scale of BS probably goes across all political points.
Norman is a muppet
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
such a sheltered life you must have.
Leave a comment:
-
[QUOTE=eatenrifles;2725835]I had a reply from my MP which included a letter from Jesse Norman to 'address my concerns'.
According to the Treasury:
.[*]There is no evidence of large corporations taking blanket decisions.
Absolute pish, again shows the scale of lying that goes on. We see it in ir35 and just makes you realise this scale of BS probably goes across all political points.
Norman is a muppet
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PTP View PostAlso, if you gave your true name and contact details to such a government body, isn't that just making yourself an easier target for HMRC/Gov ?? (although it would make no difference to whether you win or lose).
If they accepted snail-mail submissions then I might have written in without leaving a trace.
If they can't attribute the comments to a real person, how do they know it's not spam?
Leave a comment:
-
on the contrary to most posts here, I see this as a VERY significant development. This and the loan charge article on the main page. It seems to me that FINALLY, somebody is listening.
Leave a comment:
-
Also, if you gave your true name and contact details to such a government body, isn't that just making yourself an easier target for HMRC/Gov ?? (although it would make no difference to whether you win or lose).
If they accepted snail-mail submissions then I might have written in without leaving a trace.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eatenrifles View PostI had a reply from my MP which included a letter from Jesse Norman to 'address my concerns'.
According to the Treasury:
- There is widespread non-conformance to the rules. - note the use of rules rather than law
- Everyone should pay the right amount of tax. - fully agree. It is HMRC who want to flout the law
- The roll out to the public sector was successful and raised more tax than expected. - HMRC lied
- There is no evidence of large corporations taking blanket decisions. - Another lie
- And even if there was, they've put a dispute process in place to protect contractors. - ROFL
But I'm not really telling anyone anything they don't already know. - Indeed
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eatenrifles View PostI had a reply from my MP which included a letter from Jesse Norman to 'address my concerns'.
According to the Treasury:
- There is widespread non-conformance to the rules.
- Everyone should pay the right amount of tax.
- The roll out to the public sector was successful and raised more tax than expected.
- There is no evidence of large corporations taking blanket decisions.
- And even if there was, they've put a dispute process in place to protect contractors.
But I'm not really telling anyone anything they don't already know.The roll out to the public sector was successful and raised more tax than expected.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostAt best, nothing. It could make things worse. Look at the LC review.
Part of me does wonder if they could use a lack of response as an indicator of no impact, without realising that a lack of response is due to a lack of faith that anything (positive, relatively speaking) will come of it.
Leave a comment:
-
I had a reply from my MP which included a letter from Jesse Norman to 'address my concerns'.
According to the Treasury:
- There is widespread non-conformance to the rules.
- Everyone should pay the right amount of tax.
- The roll out to the public sector was successful and raised more tax than expected.
- There is no evidence of large corporations taking blanket decisions.
- And even if there was, they've put a dispute process in place to protect contractors.
But I'm not really telling anyone anything they don't already know.
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: