End of the road

[Contreras]

Up to the point where it asks you to login, or am I missing something?

Yes they fixed that too.

Some of us were able to complete the survey before it was made members only.

indeed.

[mudskipper]

I've already responded to both T&S and IR35 consulations and written to my MP twice.

The 'pros' will deal with this as well with a coordinated industry response, but IMHO I think making as much noise as possible as individuals is a good idea by highlighting how/why the proposals will damage your business and how they will not meet policy objectives.

I've drafted mine today (for T&S). I think the main thing people need to do is focus on the questions on page 18 (repeated on 23). They've specifically said they're not looking for alternative proposals for this one (p29)

The main points I've tried to make within those parameters are

1) Unfair tax advantage to consultancies
2) A different set of tests to IR35 not helpful - adds to complexity, doesn't resolve.
3) Getting client to decide is not going to work - what client is going to say you're never going to be under SDC?

Basically, if they're going ahead with this (and they are) it seems wrong to me to preempt the IR35 reforms. If they must, then make it IR35 caught = no T&S, and leave the detail of SDC / client responsibility / liability to the IR35 discussion.

[eek]

I've drafted mine today (for T&S). I think the main thing people need to do is focus on the questions on page 18 (repeated on 23). They've specifically said they're not looking for alternative proposals for this one (p29)

The main points I've tried to make within those parameters are

1) Unfair tax advantage to consultancies
2) A different set of tests to IR35 not helpful - adds to complexity, doesn't resolve.
3) Getting client to decide is not going to work - what client is going to say you're never going to be under SDC?

Basically, if they're going ahead with this (and they are) it seems wrong to me to preempt the IR35 reforms. If they must, then make it IR35 caught = no T&S, and leave the detail of SDC / client responsibility / liability to the IR35 discussion.

Is 3 relevant to the T&S consultation... That feature creep comes in the IR35 discussion

But you are correct it makes little sense for this to go first as if the chief target of this is the low paid. The T&S changes reduce their income but don't do anything else while there is the chance the IR35 changes will move them back to PAYE status with the benefits of being employees...

[mudskipper]

Is 3 relevant to the T&S consultation... That feature creep comes in the IR35 discussion

But you are correct it makes little sense for this to go first as if the chief target of this is the low paid. The T&S changes reduce their income but don't do anything else while there is the chance the IR35 changes will move them back to PAYE status with the benefits of being employees...

No, it's in this document too. It's the option 1 or 2 that's discussed in the questions (p16/17) Both options start with "It will be the engager’s responsibility to confirm with the employment
intermediary whether the contracted worker will be under the right of supervision, direction or control, to allow for the appropriate tax relief to be available." The difference in the options is then about who is responsible for the tax in what circumstances.

My real fear about this (apart from actually losing T&S) is that if this is accepted as is, then it's a logical step to make IR35 follow these rules, rather than vice versa.

[eek]

No, it's in this document too. It's the option 1 or 2 that's discussed in the questions (p16/17) Both options start with "It will be the engager’s responsibility to confirm with the employment
intermediary whether the contracted worker will be under the right of supervision, direction or control, to allow for the appropriate tax relief to be available." The difference in the options is then about who is responsible for the tax in what circumstances.

My real fear about this (apart from actually losing T&S) is that if this is accepted as is, then it's a logical step to make IR35 follow these rules, rather than vice versa.

You need to read the second bit of option 1...

If HMRC identifies that the rules for travel and subsistence tax reliefs
have not been applied compliantly, and that inappropriate or false claims have
been made, the engager for whom the worker provides their personal services,
will be jointly and severally liable to HMRC for any outstanding obligations.

So if under SD&C you may not necessarily lose all your T&S you are just subject to the rules employees have to follow.. The ideal scenario here for the end client is to turn round and say that we aren't subject to SD&C..

Which is fine provide the Agency regulations continue to exclude PSCs because the Agency regulation changes automatically place umbrella workers inside SD&C and were that extended to PSCs we will lose our expenses.

The problem here is that the unions are correct. The invisible umbrella companies who currently provide payroll for the low paid care worker will just become invisible Accountants for the same low paid worker....

[mudskipper]

You need to read the second bit of option 1...



So if under SD&C you may not necessarily lose all your T&S you are just subject to the rules employees have to follow.. The ideal scenario here for the end client is to turn round and say that we aren't subject to SD&C..

Which is fine provide the Agency regulations continue to exclude PSCs because the Agency regulation changes automatically place umbrella workers inside SD&C and were that extended to PSCs we will lose our expenses.

The problem here is that the unions are correct. The invisible umbrella companies who currently provide payroll for the low paid care worker will just become invisible Accountants for the same low paid worker....

Which brings us back to my point 3 - getting the client to say you're outside SDC is unrealistic IMO.

So if under SD&C you may not necessarily lose all your T&S you are just subject to the rules employees have to follow..

I think that was always clear. Working at one main place, but being sent hither and tither (my ClientB scenario) is OK. I think this is covered on p8 by 'permanent workplace'.

Where it gets murky, is the consultancy scenario, where bigCo sends Janet Bloggs to work on client site for 6 months and get tax relief on expenses. YourCo, sending eek, does not.

[suityou01]

Sorry chaps, need some help with the acronyms again.

Can you help? Might make the thread more readable.

CC=?
FLC=?

[TheCoconutDog]

Sorry chaps, need some help with the acronyms again.

Can you help? Might make the thread more readable.

CC=?
FLC=?

CC = IPSE Consultative Council
FLC = Feelancer Limited Company

[ASB]

The ideal scenario here for the end client is to turn round and say that we aren't subject to SD&C..

Surely not? The joint liability then places the engager directly on the hook for tax liabilities if that declaration is found in any way lacking.

It is far from om ideal for the engager to ever say qnything other tha it is sdc.

[eek]

Surely not? The joint liability then places the engager directly on the hook for tax liabilities if that declaration is found in any way lacking.

It is far from om ideal for the engager to ever say qnything other tha it is sdc.

You need to read the details of the proposal.

Option 1 does not within itself give HMRC the right to decide if SDorC should be applied or not. It only checks that the travel rules have been applied or not...

Except for that option 1 and option 2 are identical. My dislike of option 2 is that no intermediary is going to take any risk and will automatically decide - no expenses allowed...