Reply to: Discussion document on IR35 published

[SueEllen]

If that characterisation is true, I don't know whet they bothered with a discussion. Why not go straight to consultation?

They have to be seen to following protocol otherwise an organisation/individual will find some legislation to make a legal challenge.

[jamesbrown]

That's very polite - ******* tulip!

If that characterisation is true, I don't know whet they bothered with a discussion. Why not go straight to consultation?

[SueEllen]

W. T. F.

That's very polite - ******* tulip!

[jamesbrown]

IPSE members, see Andy's update here.

W. T. F.

[mudskipper]

IPSE members, see Andy's update here.

[dingdong]

The contracting industry is doomed if this legislation goes through as proposed in the discussion document.

No client is going to sign on a dotted line saying that they have no supervision, direction or control over contractors that are working in their organisation.
They will simply take the safe option of saying that they do have control meaning contractors are then liable to be treated as employees by HMRC despite having none of the protections that employees have (eg. holiday pay, job security, sick days etc.)

This, combined with personal tax rates that are now going to be higher than tax rates for people paid only via salary, removal of tax breaks on travelling expenses etc. means the tories are single handedly going to destroy the flexible workforce that contracting provides. I thought they were supposed to be be party of small business entrepreneurial types.

I'd recommend as many people as possible reply to the consultation document.

[eek]

that's not the point (most of us are in the same boat as you)

the point is you're not paying as much as if you paid PAYE on your turnover, that's why hmrc are trying to change the rules

And that is one bit to emphasis. My turnover may be £100k + VAT, but if I was to take a permie role it would probably pay £60k due to the impact Mutual obligation and other employer costs would add.

[pr1]

What about people that pay x more thousands in tax now than as a permie, excluding VAT?

Like me.

that's not the point (most of us are in the same boat as you)

the point is you're not paying as much as if you paid PAYE on your turnover, that's why hmrc are trying to change the rules

[Danglekt]

I wasn't complaining about it.

I was complaining about those people who continually claim they pay £x thousands more in tax now using a limited company than they did as an employee and then include their VAT payments within that calculation...

What about people that pay x more thousands in tax now than as a permie, excluding VAT?

Like me.

[LondonManc]

that's alright then, I agree, being FRS vat-registered takes away from how much tax "you pay" (rather than add to)

The only downside being that it makes you feel like you're earning 20% more than you actually are

[pr1]

I wasn't complaining about it.

I was complaining about those people who continually claim they pay £x thousands more in tax now using a limited company than they did as an employee and then include their VAT payments within that calculation...

that's alright then, I agree, being FRS vat-registered takes away from how much tax "you pay" (rather than add to)

[eek]

that's a different question - we aren't excluded from it (yet) so complaining about having to do it at the moment is unsubstantiated

you'd still end up with more money in your pocket even if you only had 1 VAT-claimable expense per year (assuming you're already set up), my point is that it isn't just an annoying bit of paperwork - it works in yourco's favour so don't complain about it

I wasn't complaining about it.

I was complaining about those people who continually claim they pay £x thousands more in tax now using a limited company than they did as an employee and then include their VAT payments within that calculation...

[pr1]

Try again... If we were excluded from the flat rate scheme how would you avoid doing it....

Yes we get a benefit from it (2.6%) but that isn't a selling point to HMRC that is another reason for not letting us get that benefit... Its not as if we need to accurately account for 150 cups of coffee a day with additional purchases that may or may not have vat included....

that's a different question - we aren't excluded from it (yet) so complaining about having to do it at the moment is unsubstantiated

you'd still end up with more money in your pocket even if you only had 1 VAT-claimable expense per year (assuming you're already set up), my point is that it isn't just an annoying bit of paperwork - it works in yourco's favour so don't complain about it

[eek]

An annoying task that allows us to keep an extra ~2.6% of turnover in our companies pocket, you mean?

I certainly wouldn't do it if it wasn't of benefit to me/myco

Try again... If we were excluded from the flat rate scheme how would you avoid doing it....

Yes we get a benefit from it (2.6%) but that isn't a selling point to HMRC that is another reason for not letting us get that benefit... Its not as if we need to accurately account for 150 cups of coffee a day with additional purchases that may or may not have vat included....

[ShandyDrinker]

As for your last point I wanted a recent contract changed because it had an utterly insane substitution clause (look we may not use it and you may not want us to but it should at least look like its usable)... As they wouldn't change it I went elsewhere....

I did get the agency to agree to some of the amendments advised by QDOS and ensured that I had confirmation from the client about working practices although the inflexibility was a factor in eventually leaving/not renewing.

In this respect I've found the small/mid sized agencies much better to deal with than the larger ones as they're much more open to amending the contract.