Reply to: MPs vote down bid to delay IR35 reforms, press ahead with new tax rules

[malvolio]

You may be right for this scenario, but I was thinking for the case when contractor uses its own company for the inside contract. I am not sure the fee payer would be liable.

That's an edge case. There is zero point in using a Ltd Co for an inside gig under these new rules, in fact it wold be more of a liability trying to keep the accounting straight.

And if your situation does arise, potentially, then it's another reason not to use one...

[elsergiovolador]

What company? Do pay attention.

If you are being paid net of taxes by an intermediate brolly or agency and deemed to be inside IR35, the end client remains your "employer". YourCo almost certainly won't be allowed to participate.

And before you ask, the lost monies will cover bank holidays and other non-earning days (Christmas furlough, for example), SSP, training opportunities, maternity/paternity leave and no doubt a few less well defined others like HR support. You can also argue that minimum pensions contributions and holiday pay, when the permies are getting rather more that you are is also discriminatory.

You may be right for this scenario, but I was thinking for the case when contractor uses its own company for the inside contract. I am not sure the fee payer would be liable.

[malvolio]

Such contractor can only take their own company to tribunal, as HMRC have said many times. They actually encouraged it if I recall for those who think they have no rights.

It is of course easy, but companies may not understand what clauses such contract needs to contain etc. so there is no chance for contractor to contest it and so that company wouldn't be accused of not taking reasonable care.

What company? Do pay attention.

If you are being paid net of taxes by an intermediate brolly or agency and deemed to be inside IR35, the end client remains your "employer". YourCo almost certainly won't be allowed to participate.

And before you ask, the lost monies will cover bank holidays and other non-earning days (Christmas furlough, for example), SSP, training opportunities, maternity/paternity leave and no doubt a few less well defined others like HR support. You can also argue that minimum pensions contributions and holiday pay, when the permies are getting rather more that you are is also discriminatory.

[elsergiovolador]

Such contractor can only take their own company to tribunal, as HMRC have said many times. They actually encouraged it if I recall for those who think they have no rights.

It is of course easy, but companies may not understand what clauses such contract needs to contain etc. so there is no chance for contractor to contest it and so that company wouldn't be accused of not taking reasonable care.

[malvolio]

Once companies get a taste of no rights employment, I am afraid will be no going back.

Until a nother Susan turns up and sues their "employer" for all the accrued back pay...

If someone wants to make good money, it is probably time to create an agency that will help employers create bulletproof inside IR35 contracts and help with laying off permanent staff.

There is this saying, if you don't like something, embrace it.

But they all do that already, don't they? Oh, hang on...

Inside IR35 is easy. It's outside that causes the problems.

[elsergiovolador]

Once companies get a taste of no rights employment, I am afraid will be no going back.

If someone wants to make good money, it is probably time to create an agency that will help employers create bulletproof inside IR35 contracts and help with laying off permanent staff.

There is this saying, if you don't like something, embrace it.

[Lockhouse]

Also it won't be too long before the deliberate creation of a class of worker with zero employment rights rears its ugly head. That is actually the most likely driver for future changes.

Blimey, we agree.

[eek]

Whilst I agree IPSE were terrible I’m not giving any credit to a man who claimed his campaign was responsible for a whole bunch of things it was not.

He’s a charlatan of the highest order, gives false hope to many and ultimately used it to plug himself.

I don't think that's fair - at the same time as trying to create an on-going business model (IR35 Shield) he spent time trying to make the business he was creating irrelevant...

Now as I said before personally the fight was a complete waste of time - the decision was clear years ago but some was going to stand up and try to do something once it was clear that IPSE weren't going to.

[Scruff]

IPSE had £923 630 NAV in their last published Accounts. They have managed to spend most of it on a number of things which might, (or might not) have been in the best interests of their UK Membership body. Take a look at how the Members' capital has been reduced over the past 5 years.

Recent changes to Chairman, CEO and Senior Leadership Team. Might be interesting to hear the reasons behind this, for the benefit of the remaining members. For me, the horse bolted when they decided to make it a self-appointing Board and and executive run Organisation. The Members merely became the source of funds.

[malvolio]

Ipse have had more than £120 million in member fees since 1999


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

And...?

[GhostofTarbera]

Credit should go to Dave Chaplin for being one of the few to be vocally championing the contracting sector. The IPSE approach over recent years of going from the more shouty PCG to the schmoozing IPSE also showed that the softly softly approach didn't work either.

Ultimately the failure of his campaign was all about numbers. 4000 noisy constituents/supporters was never going to carry sufficient weight. You need Extinction Rebellion or BLM size demonstrations and lobbying to have an impact.

I think credit should be given where it is due to both Chaplin and IPSE for trying, even if the misguided "knocking it our of the ballpark" never happened.

As for Chaplin making a few quid, check out the company accounts on Companies House and judge for yourself. Fair play to him though as he's a grafter and I won't begrudge whatever he's made.

Ipse have had more than £120 million in member fees since 1999


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[Invisiblehand]

Credit should go to Dave Chaplin for being one of the few to be vocally championing the contracting sector. The IPSE approach over recent years of going from the more shouty PCG to the schmoozing IPSE also showed that the softly softly approach didn't work either.

Ultimately the failure of his campaign was all about numbers. 4000 noisy constituents/supporters was never going to carry sufficient weight. You need Extinction Rebellion or BLM size demonstrations and lobbying to have an impact.

I think credit should be given where it is due to both Chaplin and IPSE for trying, even if the misguided "knocking it our of the ballpark" never happened.

As for Chaplin making a few quid, check out the company accounts on Companies House and judge for yourself. Fair play to him though as he's a grafter and I won't begrudge whatever he's made.

Whilst I agree IPSE were terrible I’m not giving any credit to a man who claimed his campaign was responsible for a whole bunch of things it was not.

He’s a charlatan of the highest order, gives false hope to many and ultimately used it to plug himself.

[malvolio]

May be but Public sectors are also shrouded in bureaucracy and rules. They are much more likely to follow the rules to the letter when issuing determination, usually meaning they will err on the safe side. I'm at PS at the moment and we've a mix of inside and outside and when discussing this with them they are pretty firm on what they consider inside and outside. It generally starts with wether the role is filling a perm role or is a temp role. You could argue they are doing it correctly but the down side is they aren't being flexible enough in borderline roles that would help them and the contractor.

IME it depends on where the funding comes from. If it is filling a permanent role in the organisation there will be money allocated in the revenue budget for the year. If it is on a project, then funding will be from the project funding (which indirectly comes from Central Government). It does offer one way to differentiate between in and out of IR35 - although no doubt there are other complexities.

I lost a gig once when the person whose "role" I was being paid for came back from long term sick leave, meaning there was no money for me - this despite being only half way through the job I was hired to deliver, which was well outside the civil servant's remit or experience. Mind you, that was MOD - strange things happen there!

[northernladuk]

There is a huge difference between reality of the market in public sector versus private sector. If public sector organisation messes up the status determination, the penalty they get is an equivalent if the caught private sector company had to pay the penalty to its parent company. Basically public sector risks nothing when issuing outside contracts and wrong determinations in private sector may bankrupt the company.

May be but Public sectors are also shrouded in bureaucracy and rules. They are much more likely to follow the rules to the letter when issuing determination, usually meaning they will err on the safe side. I'm at PS at the moment and we've a mix of inside and outside and when discussing this with them they are pretty firm on what they consider inside and outside. It generally starts with wether the role is filling a perm role or is a temp role. You could argue they are doing it correctly but the down side is they aren't being flexible enough in borderline roles that would help them and the contractor.

[elsergiovolador]

Interesting view on how public sector funding works... they don't risk next year's funding lightly.

Because that's extra paperwork and headache (not that particular body risks being closed down), plus they can blame wrong SDS on HRMC tooling and ask for greater budget next year.