Freelance Limited Company (FLC) offering from IPSE

[TheCoconutDog]

Been there done that can't be bothered with the we can't be bothered to listen viewpoint.

I have the whiff of pots and kettles on the stoves of yesteryear...

[malvolio]

Fascinating. Can't wait for next year when the changes hit. If you don't like the FLC then don't use one, it's perfectly simple. And talk of it becoming compulsory are simply bollocks, any more than any other current structure is compulsory.

But what all the gainsayers are missing is that doing nothing - which seems to be the default position - will kill freelance contracting in the UK. We can go with the FLC - the jury is still out on that one of course - or we can challenge HMG's on-going attack on close companies. But there is not a lot of time left; coherent, acceptable and costed alternatives have to be in Whitehall by September 30th.


(Oh, and before the usual morons start banging on about IPSE and my non-existent role with them again, that is my opinion, nobody else's. Other than having studied the rationale behind the FLC proposal, that is. "We" in this context is anyone who wants to go contracting...)

[eek]

I have the whiff of pots and kettles on the stoves of yesteryear...

Nope. I can see the reason behind it, we want a safe structure that allows us to work without hassle that puts us outside IR35 (even if it is at some cost)

The problem is that I can't see how you get to that point as no matter what viewpoint I look from I see very valid arguments by organisations the Government actually does listen to saying it will be abused, is unfair....

Then I look at case study 1 and 2 in the IR35 consultation and can't see how Ben can't use an FLC... And unless you solve that problem for HMRC they are not going to be interested...

[eek]

Fascinating. Can't wait for next year when the changes hit. If you don't like the FLC then don't use one, it's perfectly simple. And talk of it becoming compulsory are simply bollocks, any more than any other current structure is compulsory.

But what all the gainsayers are missing is that doing nothing - which seems to be the default position - will kill freelance contracting in the UK. We can go with the FLC - the jury is still out on that one of course - or we can challenge HMG's on-going attack on close companies. But there is not a lot of time left; coherent, acceptable and costed alternatives have to be in Whitehall by September 30th.

Yep Good luck fitting those 2 bits into the current plan...

It also can't be open to abuse (just a hint, that is what they want shut down)..

[Contreras]

Just to make those who don't frequent the IPSE forums aware, there were two posts last night which look to address some of the frequently asked questions about the FLC which can be found here.

I would urge you to read them, particularly if you haven't responded to the survey yet.

Also as I stated before the survey is written to produce biased results. I guess you used the same survey makers as the Heathrow campaign and my local council....

I think this deserves a separate thread, but...

Exactly how should one answer the IPSE survey if opposed to an FLC in any shape or form?

[malvolio]

I think this deserves a separate thread, but...

Exactly how should one answer the IPSE survey if opposed to an FLC in any shape or form?

AIUI answer the questions as stated, then give your honest opinion and other comments at the end. They are all being read and taken into consideration, including the free form content.

[mudskipper]

Then I look at case study 1 and 2 in the IR35 consultation and can't see how Ben can't use an FLC... And unless you solve that problem for HMRC they are not going to be interested...

I'm on my phone so haven't got the doc to reread the case studies, but assuming you're right, that's an interesting point.

[eek]

I'm on my phone so haven't got the doc to reread the case studies, but assuming you're right, that's an interesting point.

Here you go

Case study 1:
A legal company hires two lawyers in 2015-16 who do the same job and work on the same cases.
The company pays the lawyers gross payments of £70,000 per year.
Jo works as a direct employee. The company deducts income tax and employee NICs from her salary and pays
employer NICs on top. The total tax and NICs paid on Jo’s salary is £30,612 (£22,071 by Jo and £8,541 by the
company).
Ben works through a PSC and does not operate IR35. He pays himself the most tax advantageous remuneration
strategy combining a low salary and dividends. His total tax and NICs liability is £16,900.

Case study 2:
An NHS trust hires two nurses in 2015-16 and pays a total of £30,000 for each. The NHS trust
does not want any additional costs and so, where the trust is liable to pay employer NICs, they negotiate a lower
salary for the nurse.
Mark works as a direct employee. The NHS trust pays Mark a gross salary of £27,345 to account for the fact that
they have to pay employer NICs. The total tax and NICs paid in relation to Mark is £8,316, and Mark’s take home
pay is £21,684.
Sarah works through a PSC and does not operate IR35. She pays herself using the most tax advantageous
remuneration strategy and the total tax and NICs liability is £4,200 and takes home £25,800.

[eek]

I'm on my phone so haven't got the doc to reread the case studies, but assuming you're right, that's an interesting point.

Don't worry yourself about it the IPSE community said its not important...

But remember Ben is a lawyer. You can expect that were a loophole to be available in the rules he will use it....

[TheFaQQer]

Well you should have got someone to review your questions and responses for clarity, as the university students who randomly post on here with their project surveys would have done a better job.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the survey is mine - the questions are not mine in any way. Likewise, I am not in a position to have asked anyone to review the questions.