End of the road

[ASB]

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...

Perhaps I am missing something. According to your quote just above the bit I quoted in the event that it is, however, decided that sdc applied then the financial consequences of that fall on the engager (joint and several so they might not actually land there but an engager is an easy target).

As an engager, and with some idea of what could be argued to be sdc, then there are no circumstances in which I would say "no sdc".

The practical effect is that all engagers will surely say "sdc" otherwise there is significant risk of becoming financially liable for parties future actions.

[suityou01]

Can I get some help here

Following all this stuff is quite a mind bender.

I have a question regarding travel and subsistence. Should I give a fig? If after the new regs I cannot claim it then I with either wfh, or work commutably. If a client really wants me that bad and they are not commutable then it's their problem, and they have to foot the costs, and I just say "blame the goverment". I also have less paperwork. Epic win?

If I am right about this, then the bigger problem is to do with being IR35 caught because you use an agency. So the answer there is to go direct. So again, what's the problem?

Or did I miss something?

[eek]

Following all this stuff is quite a mind bender.

I have a question regarding travel and subsistence. Should I give a fig? If after the new regs I cannot claim it then I with either wfh, or work commutably. If a client really wants me that bad and they are not commutable then it's their problem, and they have to foot the costs, and I just say "blame the goverment". I also have less paperwork. Epic win?

If I am right about this, then the bigger problem is to do with being IR35 caught because you use an agency. So the answer there is to go direct. So again, what's the problem?

Or did I miss something?

Yep they can't foot the costs. It either has to come out of your taxed income or you need to pay NI and income tax on the benefit in kind you received by them paying for the hotel you needed to work in their office in outer Snowdonia...

[TheCoconutDog]

Following all this stuff is quite a mind bender.

I have a question regarding travel and subsistence. Should I give a fig? If after the new regs I cannot claim it then I with either wfh, or work commutably. If a client really wants me that bad and they are not commutable then it's their problem, and they have to foot the costs, and I just say "blame the goverment". I also have less paperwork. Epic win?

If I am right about this, then the bigger problem is to do with being IR35 caught because you use an agency. So the answer there is to go direct. So again, what's the problem?

Or did I miss something?

Good luck with this strategy....

[suityou01]

Yep they can't foot the costs. It either has to come out of your taxed income or you need to pay NI and income tax on the benefit in kind you received by them paying for the hotel you needed to work in their office in outer Snowdonia...

So just work local then.

Edit: this is all about survival, surely. Once companies realise there's a shortfall in niche skills on the freelance market, and their costs have now doubled I'm sure the government will be quite unpopular with industry. Just need to pull the horns in and watch the fireworks.

[TestMangler]

So just work local then.

Edit: this is all about survival, surely. Once companies realise there's a shortfall in niche skills on the freelance market, and their costs have now doubled I'm sure the government will be quite unpopular with industry. Just need to pull the horns in and watch the fireworks.

In the last 15 or so years since IR35, can you name one IT industry change that has actually worked in our favour ? Opt out ? ICT ? 'Entrepreneur' visa ? Tier 2 ?

Your 'niche skills' will become subject to some kind of fast track visa and a 10 day 'degree' course at a university in the sub continent. This isn't about survival and finding a new way of working to avoid the changes. It'll in most cases, be about contracting in a way that makes you subject to the same tax rules as permies. Has anyone considered what role the agency workers regs will have if we are taxed at source, are within SD&C ?

[eek]

In the last 15 or so years since IR35, can you name one IT industry change that has actually worked in our favour ? Opt out ? ICT ? 'Entrepreneur' visa ? Tier 2 ?

Your 'niche skills' will become subject to some kind of fast track visa and a 10 day 'degree' course at a university in the sub continent. This isn't about survival and finding a new way of working to avoid the changes. It'll in most cases, be about contracting in a way that makes you subject to the same tax rules as permies. Has anyone considered what role the agency workers regs will have if we are taxed at source, are within SD&C ?

Nope but SDorC isn't mentioned in the original discussion document unless acrobat's word search is failing https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e_expenses.pdf

[mudskipper]

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.

Having now been pointed at the original thread on the IPSE forums, and having seen their response to the first discussion document, (members only linky), they pretty much raised all the points that we've discussed this time round, except SDC which wasn't mentioned in the original discussion document.

The consultation doc (p28) seems to have addressed these points with

"HMRC recognises that the travel and subsistence of many PSCs are
legitimate business costs and accepts that any action should not undermine
genuine arrangements. However, we must also ensure that any changes will
not result in workers merely shifting into PSCs."

Guess the argument now has to be against SDC.

[suityou01]

I read the IR35 consultation doc (11 pages). First thought was that what they're trying to achieve is long overdue, and absolutely valid.

My only problem is the case studies, which don't really represent a truly self employed person through a PSC.

In fact, the simplicity of the comparison of the two lawyers was so basic, and so unenlightened it really troubled me.

Two lawyers, in the same gig processing similar cases, both paid 70K. Lawyer A is PAYE, and Lawyer B is PSC. It took a polarised view on just the tax aspects. In fact it was so polarised it forgot to look at some really important aspects, such as the legitimate cost of a PAYE worker. Such that I think it's fair to take double their gross salary as the cost to the business.

Not going to rehash what others have said on here, but I found the case studies woefully inadequate, and if they are basing the consultation process on these two case studies, then I seriously question the value of the output from said consultation.

[teapot418]

I read the IR35 consultation doc (11 pages). First thought was that what they're trying to achieve is long overdue, and absolutely valid.

My only problem is the case studies, which don't really represent a truly self employed person through a PSC.

In fact, the simplicity of the comparison of the two lawyers was so basic, and so unenlightened it really troubled me.

Two lawyers, in the same gig processing similar cases, both paid 70K. Lawyer A is PAYE, and Lawyer B is PSC. It took a polarised view on just the tax aspects. In fact it was so polarised it forgot to look at some really important aspects, such as the legitimate cost of a PAYE worker. Such that I think it's fair to take double their gross salary as the cost to the business.

Not going to rehash what others have said on here, but I found the case studies woefully inadequate, and if they are basing the consultation process on these two case studies, then I seriously question the value of the output from said consultation.

No-one can argue with the idea of simplifying IR35 - it's the detail that's causing concern. What do you think of the proposal that the current tests are replaced with a single test - whether the engager has a right of supervision, direction or control over the worker (reflecting the T&S consultation)? All current case law becomes obsolete. Combine that with the fact that any contractor engaged through an agency will automatically assumed to be under supervision, direction or control and it all looks rather bleak.
How HMRC is revoking tax relief on contractor expenses :: Contractor UK