Reply to: You're probably not going to like this - we certainly don't

[youngguy]

If you've been reading IPSE's material you will know that over 50% of all contractors are looking at not taking on PS contracts if this all comes into force...

If people are happy to sacrifice 20% of more of their income and blow large holes in their warchest and pension planning then that's their decision. It's not mine, nor, I suspect, a lot of people's.

I hope this is the case. I fear that a benched PS contractor, who will struggle to get a role in the private sector if they don't have experience,will take rate minus 20pc over 0pc sat at home.

[malvolio]

I'm unclear why you're winking. I'd be seriously worried if they weren't. Of course they are, and I browse the IPSE forum etc. too, so I broadly know what they're engaged in. This isn't a critique of IPSE, more a reality check about what we can expect.



No, it really doesn't, and it won't. It simply needs to be calibrated in such a way that HMRC/HMG can achieve their stated compliance objectives (or better ). I think you're missing something in the sequencing. I predict that almost no cases will arrive at tribunal, because IR35 status will become a foregone conclusion, i.e. inside. Anyone that is unhappy about this situation will not accept the contract. Anyone that reconsiders later on, having accepted a contract that identifies them as an employee, will be on very shaky ground. There may be a few cases in the transition period for people that are in-contract during the transition, but I think HMRC are prepared for that (in the sense that they're intentionally unprepared, so it will be a painfully slow process). That isn't to say there's no value in those people deemed inside after April 2017 pursuing employment benefits, but that's a separate issue. You have to remember that most people want a quiet life, they're simply not interested in pursuing IR35 status at a tribunal, supported or otherwise, and there will be no incentive to do so in most cases, because the situation will be understood upfront. People will vote with their feet, i.e. leave and not engage further with the PS.

If you've been reading IPSE's material you will know that over 50% of all contractors are looking at not taking on PS contracts if this all comes into force...

If people are happy to sacrifice 20% of more of their income and blow large holes in their warchest and pension planning then that's their decision. It's not mine, nor, I suspect, a lot of people's.

[youngguy]

My MP letter is done. I raised the points about employee rights, the fact I paid 3x the tax of FB last yr and finished quoting the HMRC report which said everyone they spoke to said this was a baaaaaad idea

[youngguy]

You have to remember that most people want a quiet life, they're simply not interested in pursuing IR35 status at a tribunal, .

This.
People will try to raise rates and it will be unsuccessful (at least initially ) as even if a dept wanted to engage)retain the rules they are bound by don't allow them.

[jamesbrown]

I'm pretty sure IPSE are talking to people well above the senior Civil Service drone level...

I'm unclear why you're winking. I'd be seriously worried if they weren't. Of course they are, and I browse the IPSE forum etc. too, so I broadly know what they're engaged in. This isn't a critique of IPSE, more a reality check about what we can expect.

And the magic tool has to be able to produce consistent results that align to established case law for IR35 determinations.

No, it really doesn't, and it won't. It simply needs to be calibrated in such a way that HMRC/HMG can achieve their stated compliance objectives (or better ). I think you're missing something in the sequencing. I predict that almost no cases will arrive at tribunal, because IR35 status will become a foregone conclusion, i.e. inside. Anyone that is unhappy about this situation will not accept the contract. Anyone that reconsiders later on, having accepted a contract that identifies them as an employee, will be on very shaky ground. There may be a few cases in the transition period for people that are in-contract during the transition, but I think HMRC are prepared for that (in the sense that they're intentionally unprepared, so it will be a painfully slow process). That isn't to say there's no value in those people deemed inside after April 2017 pursuing employment benefits, but that's a separate issue. You have to remember that most people want a quiet life, they're simply not interested in pursuing IR35 status at a tribunal, supported or otherwise, and there will be no incentive to do so in most cases, because the situation will be understood upfront. People will vote with their feet, i.e. leave and not engage further with the PS.

[DotasScandal]

They have already proven they won't listen to reason

The Treasury is the 'worst thing in Britain' and should be broken up, says Iain Duncan Smith

"The average age in the Treasury is 27. They spend no more than two years in any single part of the Treasury. They have no collective memory for any agreement or decision that had been taken before they arrived at their desks.

Everything is up for grabs immediately someone new moves in and they dictate every single policy area across government. It is a fight at all stages.

The kind of decisions made in countries such as Germany and the US to support industry were "very difficult" in the UK because of the Treasury's dominance, he said. "It's not a department that is characterised by the concept of vision," he said. "This is a department that is characterised solely by a lack of vision."

[youngguy]

In other words: the Government is simply being dishonest. In which case, the entire "debate" is worthless. Maybe there should be more focus on pointing out the above elephant in the room.

I think that should be included as well. I don't think Gov care tbh.

My view is there is more chance (although still practically none) of success by highlighting how this will not realise their plans. They have already proven they won't listen to reason

[eek]

What, like this you mean...

Also worth remembering several other serious organisations are saying the same thing.

I think everyone responding is sending just about the same message. Sadly I don't think that message is going to be listened to.

[malvolio]

In other words: the Government is simply being dishonest. In which case, the entire "debate" is worthless. Maybe there should be more focus on pointing out the above elephant in the room.

What, like this you mean...

Also worth remembering several other serious organisations are saying the same thing.

[DotasScandal]

I think the issue is the reason Gov cite for doing this (scummy tax dodgers) is not really the reason for doing it (we think this is an easy way to grab more tax revenue).

In other words: the Government is simply being dishonest. In which case, the entire "debate" is worthless. Maybe there should be more focus on pointing out the above elephant in the room.

[SueEllen]

I think thats far more true in the private sector than it is in the public sector. Most public sector organisations have unions that watch over such things....

The unions have forced central government and shamed local government into employing people they have had as temps for over a year in the past.

[youngguy]

It's not the unintended consequences on us that matter.. It's the unintended consequences of the public sector delivering that will be the issue...

In theory yes....but when I worked in that environment (sadly) ministerial direction etc rarely seems to care about operational impact unless it made the papers .

I am also not sure how many PS contractors will sit on the bench rather than work in the PS if they struggle to get work in the private sector

[eek]

I have no knowledge in this area,but surely Gov can't have it both ways, ie tax as an employee but have no rights. Is there not some legislation or case law that would call that unscrupulous?

I think thats far more true in the private sector than it is in the public sector. Most public sector organisations have unions that watch over such things....

[eek]

I'm pretty sure IPSE are talking to people well above the senior Civil Service drone level...

And the magic tool has to be able to produce consistent results that align to established case law for IR35 determinations. That simply isn't going to happen, even if UIR35 status is cut and dried which it isn't. If it is forced on you and you disagree, then you use the existing appeal/tribunal/higher appeal process: you think HMRC could handle a few thousand of them a month?

You need to think that through a bit more. The entire approach being suggested means that you won't be able to go through the appeal tribunal approach quickly enough for it to be effective. All you realistically will be able to do is to suck up or walk away - as I suspect that a very large portion of the deductions made at source (all the NI ones for instance) would not be recoverable regardless of the tribunal response 18 months later...

And that's not meant as an attack by the way - its just one of those annoying things about NI..

[youngguy]

On the whole, I think lobbying is a worthwhile activity, but this needs to go above the heads of the civil servants and focus on MPs and ministers. If the ministerial direction is in keeping with the desire to increase employment for tax purposes, without increasing employment, then we're all wasting out time; but we won't know until we've tried (i.e. engage your MP).

I have no knowledge in this area,but surely Gov can't have it both ways, ie tax as an employee but have no rights. Is there not some legislation or case law that would call that unscrupulous?