IR35 - Back to first principles....

[SueEllen]

Add to that a case study of the aspiring self-employed cleaner who incorporates to ltd with ambitions of growing the business. They may initially be on low rates, perhaps even sub-NMW, but why should they be penalised for this personal choice?

The reason is that people delivery drivers - (remember Citi Link ) and car valets are forced down the self-employed route, when they should be employees or at least temps were the NMW is guaranteed.

If we can advocate they get paid properly then other low paid workers e.g. carers will have to get proper payment.

In the case of the cleaner they could easily be exempt if they employed at least one non-family member for 8 hours a week. (This gives them leeway to employ an 18 year old on NMW on a Saturday.)

I've met people who built up digital and marketing agencies who didn't pay themselves when they were building up their businesses but they had employees not related to them.

Also if you have direct clients while you may want to incorporate you don't have to. It's only people who use recruitment agencies who have to.

[Contreras]

The reason is that people delivery drivers - (remember Citi Link ) and car valets are forced down the self-employed route, when they should be employees or at least temps were the NMW is guaranteed.

Not just NMW but other statutory rights too.

Maybe my post wasn't clear - I am more awake now so will try again . The idea that a pay threshold can be set only above which T&S can be claimed would a) be seen as grossly unfair, b) penalise the aspiring individual who intentionally takes on low-paid contracts to build a business (the additional test case I proposed).

What I was advocating, if clients are to become IR35 gatekeepers, is to associate any declaration of SDC by the client with a risk of employment claims against the client.

I believe this addresses both issues:
- low-paid workers forced into self-employed primarily to avoid statutory employment rights.
- genuine contractors being forced into IR35 by risk-averse clients pre-judging SDC because it carries no downside.

I would like to imagine some support/collaboration from the unions too.

Note, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating employment rights for contractors, just that clients need to include this in their risk assessment before throwing us to the IR35 dogs.

[eek]

Not just NMW but other statutory rights too.

Maybe my post wasn't clear - I am more awake now so will try again . The idea that a pay threshold can be set only above which T&S can be claimed would a) be seen as grossly unfair, b) penalise the aspiring individual who intentionally takes on low-paid contracts to build a business (the additional test case I proposed).

What I was advocating, if clients are to become IR35 gatekeepers, is to associate any declaration of SDC by the client with a risk of employment claims against the client.

I believe this addresses both issues:
- low-paid workers forced into self-employed primarily to avoid statutory employment rights.
- genuine contractors being forced into IR35 by risk-averse clients pre-judging SDC because it carries no downside.

I would like to imagine some support/collaboration from the unions too.

Note, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating employment rights for contractors, just that clients need to include this in their risk assessment before throwing us to the IR35 dogs.

The thing is a company that wants to make use of bogus self employment will just claim all their staff are outside of SD&C... Its probably not difficult to do that and still have control of your staff when they are dependent on the company to get work the following day / week.

While we fear that the default mode for many companies will be everyone is inside IR35 due to SDorC, I'm sure a lot of firms would like to argue that their staff are outside SDorC to avoid those costs and rights.

[Contreras]

The thing is a company that wants to make use of bogus self employment will just claim all their staff are outside of SD&C... Its probably not difficult to do that and still have control of your staff when they are dependent on the company to get work the following day / week.

While we fear that the default mode for many companies will be everyone is inside IR35 due to SDorC, I'm sure a lot of firms would like to argue that their staff are outside SDorC to avoid those costs and rights.

If the workforce is judged by HMRC to be outside IR35 then I am comfortable with that.

[eek]

If the workforce is judged by HMRC to be outside IR35 then I am comfortable with that.

I don't think HMG / HMRC would be as that is the cause of a race to the bottom in industries such as couriers and care workers...

[SueEllen]

If the workforce is judged by HMRC to be outside IR35 then I am comfortable with that.

The issue we have is HMRC is going to argue every business who uses self-employed workers has then under SD or C.

If we can get them to distinguish between different groups of people especially the low paid it will help us.

[yakitoo]

The issue we have is HMRC is going to argue every business who uses self-employed workers has then under SD or C.

If we can get them to distinguish between different groups of people especially the low paid it will help us.

Much more important to make sure that it is S,D AND C that is used.

[mudskipper]

If we can get them to distinguish between different groups of people especially the low paid it will help us.

Bearing in mind most of us are on 10K a year...

[SueEllen]

Bearing in mind most of us are on 10K a year...

If we had to take NMW to be left alone we would probably do so.

[eek]

Much more important to make sure that it is S,D AND C that is used.

All case law is based on NOT subject to SD or C (which is nearly the same but not quite). The problem is that the current phrase is under SD or C with the NOT removed.

You can see how its occurred,

As the sentence says

people will NOT be able to claim expenses if subject to SD or C (any one puts you in).

When what we really want is something like

people will be able to claim expenses if NOT subject to SD or C (not subject to one of them puts you out).