Freelance Limited Company (FLC) offering from IPSE

[malvolio]

Because HMRC is talking about holding clients liable for IR35.

So what will happen? Clients will say, "You have to give us a way to not have open ended liability." And the net result will be that if HMG will agree that if clients engage FLCs, they've done their due diligence, and so aren't liable. So then clients will only engage FLCs.

But HMRC still won't give a guarantee that FLCs are IR35 exempt. So we'll get the worst of all worlds. Contractors will be forced into FLCs, and since everyone will be in FLCs, HMRC will no longer see FLCs as the tough target. So FLCs will be investigated for IR35 just as Ltd Cos have, the liability will still fall on the contractors, so we'll have all the risks we've had before, but now we'll be paying more tax than we have been.

So we'll have changed our corporate structure (and we pay to do that), we now have PSCs defined in law and easily targeted, we pay more tax, but a capricious investigatory body can STILL declare that we're IR35 and tax us more heavily than a permie gets taxed.

As of now, they can do precisely that, unchallenged. However the FLC entry criteria are meant to be such that only genuine one-man businesses will qualify and so, by definition, they are outside IR35. That. sadly is about as much as we can realistically hope for: IR35 is deliberately vague

If you think that scenario can't happen, then go ahead and proceed. But if there is a reasonable risk of it happening, then maybe someone should look at how they can tweak the proposal to protect against that.

I get that some people will oppose it just because it costs more than what they currently have. That's not my objection. As I said, in principle, I think the idea has merit.

It's not what I'd prefer. I'd prefer something simpler that addresses the concerns. Why are you so wedded to this particular idea?

I'm not, nor do I have any responsibility for continuing or not, that's down to IPSE.

I'm only trying to explain why it might be the better option, and recognising that nobody has come up with an idea of similar merit that doesn't involve HMRC accepting they are wrong. At the very least, it might open a line of dialogue with HMRC that leads to a recognition that some of us are genuine businesses and should be treated as such.

But if we sit on our collective hands and don't offer some alternatives, then nothing will happen to stop the present rush to maximum taxation and the death of contracting.

[yakitoo]

All this is sounding more and more like a HMRC wish list being implemented.

[eek]

As of now, they can do precisely that, unchallenged. However the FLC entry criteria are meant to be such that only genuine one-man businesses will qualify and so, by definition, they are outside IR35. That. sadly is about as much as we can realistically hope for: IR35 is deliberately vague


I'm not, nor do I have any responsibility for continuing or not, that's down to IPSE.

I'm only trying to explain why it might be the better option, and recognising that nobody has come up with an idea of similar merit that doesn't involve HMRC accepting they are wrong. At the very least, it might open a line of dialogue with HMRC that leads to a recognition that some of us are genuine businesses and should be treated as such.

But if we sit on our collective hands and don't offer some alternatives, then nothing will happen to stop the present rush to maximum taxation and the death of contracting.

But we do have an alternative : and lunch was very nice

[malvolio]

But we do have an alternative : and lunch was very nice

Can't wait to hear it.

[eek]

Can't wait to hear it.

You should have asked HMRC the right questions then when you / the IPSE met them.... Paranoia is not a good thing to have when politics is involved....

[malvolio]

You should have asked HMRC the right questions then when you / the IPSE met them.... Paranoia is not a good thing to have when politics is involved....

Nor is smug superiority. If you conversation is about to f*** up IPSE's position, it would be good if you, as an active member, could pass on the detail their management. If you have a better proposal, let's all hear it. But if all you want is your usual "I know more than you" ego trip...

[jamesbrown]

Nor is smug superiority. If you conversation is about to f*** up IPSE's position, it would be good if you, as an active member, could pass on the detail their management. If you have a better proposal, let's all hear it. But if all you want is your usual "I know more than you" ego trip...

By the same virtue, it would be really nice if an official representative from IPSE could inform those here about when and how they plan to **** up the response to the IR35 discussion and T&S consultation, so that the rest of us in the contracting community can push back. You know, given that IPSE claims to represent all 4.5m self-employed people now. If IPSE listens to its membership, their position will likely not be the FLC (it will be interesting to see the unfettered responses to the consultation, particularly the anonymous comments). In any case, if IPSE adopts the FLC as its position (to quite what, I'm unclear, but let's assume some mythical consultation that isn't the IR35 discussion or T&S consultation), anything that undermines it would be most welcome (you know, in a dead horse flogged sort of way).

[eek]

Nor is smug superiority. If you conversation is about to f*** up IPSE's position, it would be good if you, as an active member, could pass on the detail their management. If you have a better proposal, let's all hear it. But if all you want is your usual "I know more than you" ego trip...

I haven't and sadly didn't need to say anything.... There is a default union position that if umbrella's disappear or other means (limited companies....) save the end client a penny or two they will become the new default option.

However if you are so paranoid that the great idea could be screwed up by people objecting to it for its potential to be abused perhaps you should work on ways to show that the abuse cannot occur...

And if you think I would take a confidential document and share it with others then that will be a case for a lawyer...

As for being an active member of IPSE sorry I gave up on that last Friday when the FAQs appeared...

And its not an ego trip. If it seems that I know more than you that is probably because I'm talking and listening to people (all concerned with the changes but mainly outside the contracting industry) and in return they are talking to me.... The fact IPSE don't seem to want to be part of my discussions is not my issue or my concern any longer...

[TheFaQQer]

By the same virtue, it would be really nice if an official representative from IPSE could inform those here about when and how they plan to **** up the response to the IR35 discussion and T&S consultation, so that the rest of us in the contracting community can push back.

As far as I am aware, you aren't going to get an official representative from IPSE on CUK in the near future.

The deadlines for the consultation is September 30th, and IPSE will be making a response to the consultation and discussion papers before the consultation closes.

The best way to push back on something that IPSE are doing is, however, to make your voice heard in an environment where someone will listen. I'm not saying "don't post on CUK", and I appreciate that it's inconvenient to post in more than one place, but the only place that you are guaranteed that your posts will be read by the board is to make them on the IPSE forums. Every post there is read by the board, so if you want to raise something then it has to be done there. If there is a valid alternative to suggest, then get over there and say it, please - the board will listen to the members.

I know that's not the message that some people want to hear, and I'd love to see some kind of IPSE presence on CUK (and anywhere else that there is a vibrant freelance community) - but for the time being I can't see that coming (and almost certainly not before the end of the consultation period). At what is a crucial time for contractors, those members with a desire to have a voice on these issues should make their points over there.

[eek]

As far as I am aware, you aren't going to get an official representative from IPSE on CUK in the near future.

The deadlines for the consultation is September 30th, and IPSE will be making a response to the consultation and discussion papers before the consultation closes.

The best way to push back on something that IPSE are doing is, however, to make your voice heard in an environment where someone will listen. I'm not saying "don't post on CUK", and I appreciate that it's inconvenient to post in more than one place, but the only place that you are guaranteed that your posts will be read by the board is to make them on the IPSE forums. Every post there is read by the board, so if you want to raise something then it has to be done there. If there is a valid alternative to suggest, then get over there and say it, please - the board will listen to the members.

I know that's not the message that some people want to hear, and I'd love to see some kind of IPSE presence on CUK (and anywhere else that there is a vibrant freelance community) - but for the time being I can't see that coming (and almost certainly not before the end of the consultation period). At what is a crucial time for contractors, those members with a desire to have a voice on these issues should make their points over there.

Or perhaps create a voice that actually represents contractors and their viewpoint..... And I truly wish I didn't have to be so blunt but there does seem to be a general opinion outside the IPSE (especially with those in the contracting industry that the IPSE doesn't bother to keep in contact with) that the IPSE are no longer representative.... And that is both incredibly damaging and very hard to refute...