Freelance Limited Company (FLC) offering from IPSE

[TheFaQQer]

What a load of b****. Why even bother creating a survey when they already decided what they are going to make of it.

AIUI, the decision was made once the survey was completed, not before.

24.5% of everyone doing the survey left negative feedback.
23.8% of people leaving feedback left positive feedback.

Headline of this is that less than 1 in 4 left negative feedback and a staggering quarter of everyone leaving feedback left positive feedback. Talking about making it all up.

I'm not sure which bit you think is made up. Why not pop over to the IPSE forums and ask there?

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

AIUI, the decision was made once the survey was completed, not before.



I'm not sure which bit you think is made up. Why not pop over to the IPSE forums and ask there?

I am not saying its made up, but if you can make something with more negative comments look positive something is wrong from the start.

[SueEllen]

I am not saying its made up, but if you can make something with more negative comments look positive something is wrong from the start.

It's spin.

I live on the flight path of Heathrow and all residents were warned not to fill in any surveys from BAA or their representatives as negative comments would be spun in exactly the same way.

This is because most people who fill in surveys don't make any comments so you can use these people's lack of commenting to spin your survey results the way you want.

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

It's spin.

I live on the flight path of Heathrow and all residents were warned not to fill in any surveys from BAA or their representatives as negative comments would be spun in exactly the same way.

This is because most people who fill in surveys don't make any comments so you can use these people's lack of commenting to spin your survey results the way you want.

Its sad that IPSE doesn't represent us freelancers. When my membership runs out I wont renew and I will buy my ir35 insurance from somewhere else - I take it I need to still cover the last 6 years even if (when) I stop contracting.

[malvolio]

Its sad that IPSE doesn't represent us freelancers. When my membership runs out I wont renew and I will buy my ir35 insurance from somewhere else - I take it I need to still cover the last 6 years even if (when) I stop contracting.

Sorry, but that's simply pathetic logic. Who do you suppose IPSE is supporting if it's not freelance workers? And your membership covers any tax-related investigations, not just IR35; considerably more if you have Plus membership.

By all means go elsewhere, but at least be honest about why.

[TheFaQQer]

Its sad that IPSE doesn't represent us freelancers. When my membership runs out I wont renew and I will buy my ir35 insurance from somewhere else - I take it I need to still cover the last 6 years even if (when) I stop contracting.

If you are a plus member, the total cover provided by IPSE comes to somewhere just over £100k a year - just so you're comparing like with like.

Of course, the good news for non-members is that they all get to reap the benefits that IPSE delivers for everyone - like the Arctic success and repelling the FBT

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

Sorry, but that's simply pathetic logic. Who do you suppose IPSE is supporting if it's not freelance workers? And your membership covers any tax-related investigations, not just IR35; considerably more if you have Plus membership.

By all means go elsewhere, but at least be honest about why.

I have a PLUS membership, actually a double membership. I have always supported IPSE/PCG but this FLC thing is just a con and will only make things worse for us. Anyone that cant see that is sitting with their heads deep in the sand.

[jamesbrown]

I have a PLUS membership, actually a double membership. I have always supported IPSE/PCG but this FLC thing is just a con and will only make things worse for us. Anyone that cant see that is sitting with their heads deep in the sand.

Personally, I've become ambivalent about the whole thing. There was always going to be a majority of members that would support, in principle, an unspecified trade-off between tax and regulation; each individual will substitute their own ideal about what that trade-off might look like. It's now for IPSE to stop the wheels from falling off by showing that the trade-off is both available (I would be stunned if it were, but I accept that I could be wrong) and is meaningfully different in its consequences than operating all contracts as inside IR35.

The proposal isn't neutral for those of us that would never consider an FLC, because it is both divisive (i.e. divides legitimate contractors into two groups) and, even if it isn't adopted, presents the gov't with options for pursuing elements of the proposal (i.e. IPSE has taken several risks in submitting this, as they are fully aware, and will have to answer to their members about the consequences).

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

Personally, I've become ambivalent about the whole thing. There was always going to be a majority of members that would support, in principle, an unspecified trade-off between tax and regulation; each individual will substitute their own ideal about what that trade-off might look like. It's now for IPSE to stop the wheels from falling off by showing that the trade-off is both available (I would be stunned if it were, but I accept that I could be wrong) and is meaningfully different in its consequences than operating all contracts as inside IR35.

The proposal isn't neutral for those of us that would never consider an FLC, because it is both divisive (i.e. divides legitimate contractors into two groups) and, even if it isn't adopted, presents the gov't with options for pursuing elements of the proposal (i.e. IPSE has taken several risks in submitting this, as they are fully aware, and will have to answer to their members about the consequences).

The main problem is that as soon as this FLC is up and running, the powers will see this as an easy target. Just wait for the first or second budget after FLC's are introduced, first thing might be no dividends are allowed in FLC's. Easy when they don't have to consider ANY big companies.

[jamesbrown]

The main problem is that as soon as this FLC is up and running, the powers will see this as an easy target. Just wait for the first or second budget after FLC's are introduced, first thing might be no dividends are allowed in FLC's. Easy when they don't have to consider ANY big companies.

It's possible, although I'd be less concerned about this as HMG needs to be careful about legislating in a discriminatory way (e.g. targeting businesses based on size) and they are unlikely to institute the FLC as a tax efficient structure. If HMG are going to buy into the FLC, they'll need to be convinced that it isn't an avoidance vehicle; subject to this, the optics of targeting a structure labelled as a "freelancer" aren't great, especially if the tax advantages are marginal. If it's a half-arsed structure that becomes the de facto standard for working via an agency (which is a possible outcome), and the tax incentives are worthwhile, then I would tend to agree with you, but I don't think the latter is likely, otherwise the entry criteria would need to be impossibly tight and there would be no incentive for anyone involved. If the FLC goes ahead, it will be limited liability PAYE, essentially.