Originally posted by eek
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
IR35 - Back to first principles....
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by teapot418 View PostI suppose I was thinking that MOO could indicate that you were part and parcel, as opposed to lack of it indicating that you weren't - so from HMRC's point of view they get a benefit, without the absence of MOO automatically putting you outside.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
The thing with P&P is that it's just yet another highly subjective criterion. I think the ability to relate a role to a specific project, in conjunction with some minimum cut off point for when one can be engaged via a ltd, looks more promising and amenable to relatively more objective criteria and limits the scope where an employer can encourage a Fri-Mon scenario.Comment
-
Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostThe thing with P&P is that it's just yet another highly subjective criterion. I think the ability to relate a role to a specific project, in conjunction with some minimum cut off point for when one can be engaged via a 3rd party (ltd / umbrella), looks more promising and amenable to relatively more objective criteria and limits the scope where an employer can encourage a Fri-Mon scenario.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostThat is basically at the heart of the proposal Lisa and I (among others) will be suggesting for the T&S consultation. Anyone paid less than national living wage * x is not covered by expenses (and ideally has to be paid PAYE)...
Then we have the IR35 discussion document where we can probably directly suggest if people who are not paid national living wage * x should be subject to the legislation (and therefore will have to be paid via PAYE)...
Yes the idea probably upsets a lot of people both here and elsewhere but since we started suggesting this as an option no one has come up with anything better... However its not enough for the IR35 discussion document as case study 1 is a lawyer paid well above the average wage...
Applying different rules based upon a pay threshold is flawed in principle IMHO, sorry to bash the idea.
Originally posted by cojak View PostBut shouldn't those workers be permanent employees? I guess that HMG/HMRC need to do something to make that happen.
IR35 back to first principles is about "disguised employment". In effect employment without statutory rights (and a consequential loss of tax).
Clients are prepared to pay more to compensate for this and the convenience of being able to bin someone easily.
Now if clients are to become IR35 gatekeepers - to ensure the correct tax is collected from their disguised employees - then at the very least they need their cages rattling wrt the risk of defending an employment tribunal in certain cases. Anything less will be too bloody one-sided IMHO.
I think the fact that many of 'us' contractors seem to embrace the lack of statutory rights so willingly is one reason the IR35 debate becomes so tortured. It shouldn't blind us to arguments that could ultimately lead to not being treated (and taxed) as an employee.Comment
-
(haven't read the whole thread, so excuse if this has already been raised and dismissed)
I think the sensible approach is a move towards abolishing NI, and incoporating that into income tax, however this will never happen as people don't see NI as a tax, and no one wants to be seen to raise a new tax, even if it's merely replacing an existing one.
The problem is that we contractors want to be treated individually, we are a special case but HMRC can't be seen to give us an exception, or create a series of tax law which benefits us without a clear definition of what we are, even the PSC definition was mired with confusion as in the scheme of things we are still a small body of people.Originally posted by Stevie Wonder BoyI can't see any way to do it can you please advise?
I want my account deleted and all of my information removed, I want to invoke my right to be forgotten.Comment
-
Originally posted by SimonMac View Post(haven't read the whole thread, so excuse if this has already been raised and dismissed)
I think the sensible approach is a move towards abolishing NI, and incoporating that into income tax, however this will never happen as people don't see NI as a tax, and no one wants to be seen to raise a new tax, even if it's merely replacing an existing one.
The problem is that we contractors want to be treated individually, we are a special case but HMRC can't be seen to give us an exception, or create a series of tax law which benefits us without a clear definition of what we are, even the PSC definition was mired with confusion as in the scheme of things we are still a small body of people.
HMRC's current stance is everyone paid via PAYE with the decision for SDorC made by the end client. That will result in a default viewpoint of you are being paid by PAYE as its utterly impossible to argue a client doesn't have the right to one of SDorC (why take the risk). So we need to create some simple tests that allow an end client to bring in a contractor to complete a specific task / project to have certainty that their decision won't come back to haunt them.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI don't want to be treated as special and thats one reason why I believe the FLC is nonsensical and utterly insane (because the IPSE believe all their members are special and should be treated as such).
HMRC's current stance is everyone paid via PAYE with the decision for SDorC made by the end client. That will result in a default viewpoint of you are being paid by PAYE as its utterly impossible to argue a client doesn't have the right to one of SDorC (why take the risk). So we need to create some simple tests that allow an end client to bring in a contractor to complete a specific task / project to have certainty that their decision won't come back to haunt them.
Also you would still miss a fair proportion of contractors. I do high level business architecture and consultancy where I'm telling the client what needs to happen. Normally I will be well outside the SDandC boundary but not an SDorC one, and my work is not easily framed in terms of discrete deliverables (unless you count "make it better" as a deliverable). Equally, workers at the other end of the spectrum, such as agile delivery and testing teams and technical support would be out of scope, when in reality clients rely on that temporary resource for all sorts of reasons without them being pseudo employees or even subject to P&P. We mustn't lose sight of what the overall objective here really is; to preserve the status of the people who deliver the flexible workforce.
So a good idea in principle but it needs a bit of work, I feel...Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostYou could read that as saying you don't want a specific set of objective criteria set up to distinguish between genuine business and pseudo-employee but instead want a specific set of objective criteria set up to distinguish between business and pseudo-employee except in your case you want it defined by the end client. After all, they are the ones defining the contract terms.
Also you would still miss a fair proportion of contractors. I do high level business architecture and consultancy where I'm telling the client what needs to happen. Normally I will be well outside the SDandC boundary but not an SDorC one, and my work is not easily framed in terms of discrete deliverables (unless you count "make it better" as a deliverable). Equally, workers at the other end of the spectrum, such as agile delivery and testing teams and technical support would be out of scope, when in reality clients rely on that temporary resource for all sorts of reasons without them being pseudo employees or even subject to P&P. We mustn't lose sight of what the overall objective here really is; to preserve the status of the people who deliver the flexible workforce.
So a good idea in principle but it needs a bit of work, I feel...
And yes anything suggested will need work but if end clients have to determine status (and that is what HMRC says they want) they will need tests that allow them to confident in their decision that the person is inside / outside and paperwork that can just be filed away knowing that they can argue their point...Last edited by eek; 24 August 2015, 08:56.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostThere has never been an SDandC test, that's the problem
[EDIT] Sorry, I see what you mean.... However framing a three-cornered test is a lot harder than an any-one-of-three test.
Its always been not subject to SDorC and HMRC are looking to change that to subject to SDorC....
And yes anything suggested will need work but if end clients have to determine status (and that is what HMRC says they want) they will need tests that allow them to confident in their decision that the person is inside / outside and paperwork that can just be filed away knowing that they can argue their point...Last edited by malvolio; 24 August 2015, 09:12.Blog? What blog...?Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment