Freelance Limited Company (FLC) offering from IPSE

[TheCoconutDog]

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

Sorry eek, but you really are misrepresenting the IPSE stance. They are trying to engage in reasoned dialogue, and I wish more folk from here would throw their constructively critical 2p in over there ( looking at you jamesbrown ).

[eek]

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.

It's a collective you as in IPSE....

Interestingly given that this is a Saturday morning this thread seems to be IPSE CC members against the rest of world.... Personally, I find that rather enlightening...

[TheFaQQer]

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?

Honestly and as accurately as possible. I would also use any free text field to make your thoughts clear as well.

I don't know if there is any other channel to express your opposition, other than to speak up on the IPSE forums. Sorry

[TheFaQQer]

I don't remember it accepting that the questions are biased towards a its a good, reasonable, just about acceptable, oh well I better accept it solution.

I don't remember suggesting it did.

[SueEllen]

The first case study looks like a bad example.

Ben being a lawyer could go down the sole trader route, or if he had a partner or two an LLP

Lawyers have much higher PI costs than those in the IT industry and also have to pay to be regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I'm sure I've been told PI is higher for lawyers who incorporate plus if you aren't experienced enough you can't get PI

For those reasons alone Ben may prefer to be an employee or may be forced to be an employee.

Finally Ben, if experienced, would have more than one client at a time. So while he may have one large contract through the year he would have lots other contracts.

[eek]

Sorry eek, but you really are misrepresenting the IPSE stance. They are trying to engage in reasoned dialogue, and I wish more folk from here would throw their constructively critical 2p in over there ( looking at you jamesbrown ).

Been there, posted really, really can't be arsed anymore, as comments are belittled and ignored...

I have my response to the FLC, it would be abused so is utterly worthless... Its up to you to dissuade me from that viewpoint but I can safely saw I won't be wasting my time on any other forums (except here) arguing why its rubbish.

Show me 100% that it cannot be abused and I might accept it, for the moment I believe it will do far more harm than good. And with limited time there are far better approaches that may be worth investigating.

But if you still think its so good show on here how an FLC could not be abused by Ben the lawyer. Case Study one in the IR35 discussion document...

[TheFaQQer]

It's a collective you as in IPSE...

In that case then it should be "we" since we are all members of the same organization.

Interestingly given that this is a Saturday morning this thread seems to be IPSE CC members against the rest of world.... Personally, I find that rather enlightening...

It probably just means that we have no life

I mentioned the FAQ this morning because it's an important issue, there has been an update that may be interesting and missed by IPSE members who are not using the IPSE forums, and I want as much informed input from as many members as possible.

Because sure as eggs is eggs, someone after the consultation ends will say that not enough people participated - whether the consultation is a resounding endorsement or rejection.

[eek]

The first case study looks like a bad example.

Ben being a lawyer could go down the sole trader route, or if he had a partner or two an LLP

Lawyers have much higher PI costs than those in the IT industry and also have to pay to be regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I'm sure I've been told PI is higher for lawyers who incorporate plus if you aren't experienced enough you can't get PI

For those reasons alone Ben may prefer to be an employee or may be forced to be an employee.

Finally Ben, if experienced, would have more than one client at a time. So while he may have one large contract through the year he would have lots other contracts.

ignoring the bad example because of x,y, z bit. Why couldn't Ben use an FLC... How does the FLC stop him (ab)using an FLC. Say you replaced lawyer with HR manager....

[eek]

In that case then it should be "we" since we are all members of the same organization.



It probably just means that we have no life

I mentioned the FAQ this morning because it's an important issue, there has been an update that may be interesting and missed by IPSE members who are not using the IPSE forums, and I want as much informed input from as many members as possible.

Because sure as eggs is eggs, someone after the consultation ends will say that not enough people participated - whether the consultation is a resounding endorsement or rejection.

anyone who doesn't like the result will say that. I don't, however, think the survey questions help...

[Zero Liability]

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...

How are you guys proposing to go about this (purely out of curiosity)?