Re: Tax-avoiding umbrella companies ‘using legit names to entice contractors’

[northernladuk]

Why should they? All they'll get is problems and cost trying to keep up with vetting and then get stung when one drops through the net and ceases to be operating properly for absolutely zero benefit to HRMC. They police the system, not ensure it works. They aren't going to take all the effort and risk when there is nothing in it for them.

[ladymuck]

No, they don't want to be seen to endorse anything. The closest is the FCSA, a private enterprise, that has their own criteria as to what good looks like.

Think about the implementation of CEST, which has done very little to help people make an informed decision about status. Also consider the many complexities arising from case law and various tribunals. With that landscape, any endorsement would come with so many caveats as to be worthless.

I also wouldn't necessarily trust anything HMRC says is "good".

[Jed Clampett]

Having read this article here: https://www.contractoruk.com/news/00...ntractors.html

Instead of HMRC providing a blacklist of dodgy Umbrellas to not use - don't you think HMRC should provide a list of Umbrella companies they have vetted and they approve of - and are on HMRC's safe list and recommend by HMRC?

That way a contractor should be covered if they use an Umbrella HMRC have vetted and approved and recommended as a safe Umbrella company?

Maybe some sort of checking and approval system like ISO 27001 or SOC 2 so the Umbrella is certified as safe to use by HMRC?