IR35 Consultation Responses?

[TykeMerc]

I see no reson to line up behind IPSE, they have suffered from incurable arrogance since the early days of the PCG which at least had an honest agenda, these days it's just an insurance funded lobby group stroking the ego's of their management. As I stated in my earlier post their entire submission will be discredited and subsequently ignored if it's published unchanged from what I read.
Oh it missed the point almost entirely when it comes to the T&S proposals which are what will damage contracting more than what they addressed in the document.

It's at times like these that their mettle should be seen, tested and proven, so far it's been a farce with a poorly written survey that rather missed the point (until it was restricted to members only and after they'd "lost" a load of submissions) and attempts to drive all discussion into a members only closed forum in order to shape opinion and conceal dissent. The fact that until some of the CUK Forum posters stood for IPSE council membership and others engaged on their forums those forums were essentially silent is telling. Just how many of the IPSE "members" are purely insurance customers and have no idea that PCG was originally an anti IR35 campaign group?

I have a lot of respect for Lisa and Eek who arranged and collated data from surveys and have actively driven debate (yes Eek was annoyed to the point of walking away by a moron who thought winding him up was funny) and I have filled in any and all surveys they arranged. I have responded to their questions freely, the one Lisa published a week or so back had a fair amount of free space to provide verbose responses to questions where it was helpful, incidentally I felt that their surveys were far more professionally worded than the IPSE ones.

Yes this is a bit of an anti IPSE rant, but if, as they claim, they represent such a massive constituency then they could and should have done a vastly better job with this important issue.

[ShandyDrinker]

I see no reson to line up behind IPSE, they have suffered from incurable arrogance since the early days of the PCG which at least had an honest agenda, these days it's just an insurance funded lobby group stroking the ego's of their management. As I stated in my earlier post their entire submission will be discredited and subsequently ignored if it's published unchanged from what I read.
Oh it missed the point almost entirely when it comes to the T&S proposals which are what will damage contracting more than what they addressed in the document.

It's at times like these that their mettle should be seen, tested and proven, so far it's been a farce with a poorly written survey that rather missed the point (until it was restricted to members only and after they'd "lost" a load of submissions) and attempts to drive all discussion into a members only closed forum in order to shape opinion and conceal dissent. The fact that until some of the CUK Forum posters stood for IPSE council membership and others engaged on their forums those forums were essentially silent is telling. Just how many of the IPSE "members" are purely insurance customers and have no idea that PCG was originally an anti IR35 campaign group?

I have a lot of respect for Lisa and Eek who arranged and collated data from surveys and have actively driven debate (yes Eek was annoyed to the point of walking away by a moron who thought winding him up was funny) and I have filled in any and all surveys they arranged. I have responded to their questions freely, the one Lisa published a week or so back had a fair amount of free space to provide verbose responses to questions where it was helpful, incidentally I felt that their surveys were far more professionally worded than the IPSE ones.

Yes this is a bit of an anti IPSE rant, but if, as they claim, they represent such a massive constituency then they could and should have done a vastly better job with this important issue.

All good points. It's a shame the IPSE have kept the discussion a closed shop as you're spot on with your observation. Sadly I think their forums are nowhere near as active as these ones. Lisa and Eek should definitely be applauded for their separate surveys/approaches on this.

Perhaps wider than the discussion about the merits (or otherwise) of the IPSE, what I have found over the last 6 or so months since the 2 bombshell budgets, is the apathy that many contractors I've worked with have shown to the proposed changes to T&S and IR35. Some of that may be down to the fact that I was working at an IB in Canary Wharf where many of the contractors were local anyway (and only ever seemed to take local contracts) so the T&S changes may not affect them too much. For those of us choosing not to live in London these changes will have a real impact on our businesses. In short many contractors just don't seem to care about T&S or IR35.

While these forums have a number of very active members who I've no doubt have got involved, the numbers on here pale into insignificance compared to the number of contractors out there. Ultimately if contractors don't do their bit and educate themselves as to the changes which are afoot, we'll end up with changes forced upon us whether we like it or not. We're hardly likely to get much sympathy from the vast majority of the "employed" public.

[cojak]

I suspect that some savvy end-of-career contractors will cherry pick the best-paying permie jobs over the next 6 months, leaving the vast majority of the blissfully ignorant (non hard core) to scamble after poorly paid jobs come May 2016 (they'll only just find out in April).

Lots of contracts will be going begging to those who tough it out...

[ShandyDrinker]

I suspect that some savvy end-of-career contractors will cherry pick the best-paying permie jobs over the next 6 months, leaving the vast majority of the blissfully ignorant (non hard core) to scamble after poorly paid jobs come May 2016 (they'll only just find out in April).

Lots of contracts will be going begging to those who tough it out...

While I agree with you to a certain extent, unless the rates rise significantly for those who do choose to tough it out, the contractor will end up being worse off than the permie simply through the additional taxes that we could be forced to pay if the changes do go through.

Both documents make it clear that if the tax changes are put in place at some point there will be a legal challenge to get employment rights.

Bar a miracle happening, I think this will be the main point if the changes go through as expected. Ultimately if the government/treasury/HMRC want to play the game of saying that IR35 caught contracts mean that the person is a disguised employee, they should get employee rights such as holiday, pensions, etc. Although I don't know if there is precedence in law of the Duck Test there should be. The same should be applied to IR35 and employment rights.

Having watched an interesting document on Scientology (not that I'm a big fan of cults) the other day (Going Clear), their members played a blinder with the IRS in the US by tying them up in litigation to ensure that Scientology was tax exempt. If all the proposed changes do go through, I for one would like to see HMRC (and potentially clients) tied up in litigation such that if contractors are classed as employees, they should get all the benefits of being employees.

[Zero Liability]

Glad to see the final form of the IPSE response, something I can definitely get behind.

Thank you to Lisa for all your work.

Yeah, I think the substance of it was pretty good. IMO, Lisa (and the combined efforts of others that went into it) outdid them in terms of the thoroughness of the reply, and in suggesting the hopelessness of their proposed changes and in pointing out better alternatives. Of course, with regard to the consultation in the OP, they really should adopt a "wait and see" approach given the new dividend tax, as it may suggest outright abolition even from HMG's POV, something I'd recommend they considered regardless given its present form. I may have missed it but did the suggestion of a project-based test as an alternative criterion not end up making it in?

Now whether they read it, read it in any depth or just toss it in the shredder, remains to be seen.

[TykeMerc]

I suspect that some savvy end-of-career contractors will cherry pick the best-paying permie jobs over the next 6 months, leaving the vast majority of the blissfully ignorant (non hard core) to scamble after poorly paid jobs come May 2016 (they'll only just find out in April).

Lots of contracts will be going begging to those who tough it out...

As a more than 20 year contractor this has more than crossed my mind on several occasions. I've been taking time off and have just started to look for the next role and for the first time in over a decade my search parameters have included permie roles. I'm not actively looking to get out, but I'm seriously thinking about it, it's more than a little weird if I'm honest.

As Zero Liability said the response driven and informed by Lisa and Eek's surveys and soundings is pretty sound and I'm comfortable with the content, the IPSE one though is just begging to be filed under bin by merit of the bare faced untruths in section 1, if they've published that version as their formal response and sent it to HMRC and HMG then they deserve to be caught out. I admit, being somewhat anti that organisation, I'm struggling with a personal decision on that front, obviously that dilemma goes away if the truth is published instead.

[mudskipper]

Sorry chaps - obviously got a gremlin in the works - try this one HMRC issue discussion document on IR35 Legislation, AUCAE urge contractors to #haveyoursay - All Umbrella Companies Are Equal and the response to the T&S survey can be found here Budget 2015 : AUCAE launch survey urging contractors and recruiters to have their voice heard. - All Umbrella Companies Are Equal

Thanks Lisa, good stuff.

[mudskipper]

(yes Eek was annoyed to the point of walking away by a moron who thought winding him up was funny)

I think you need to recheck the thread. The 'moron' had provided a genuine offer of help, which eek hadn't received due to having said 'moron' on his ignore list. It was a misunderstanding. Eek then flounced as is his prerogative, but it was not down to the actions of any forum user.

[mudskipper]

I'm very happy with the IPSE responses to both proposals too.

[TykeMerc]

I'm very happy with the IPSE responses to both proposals too.

You're happy with the claim to represent the interests and opinions of 4.5 million contractors which is at best a wild fabrication and in reality an abject lie? Fine that helps to reduce the dilemma, if that's the published issue then I know how to act.

Ignore list or not the way I read the thread, Eek who was clearly feeling the strain found the SY01 posted "comedy" unfunny and irritating in the extreme so he decided to absent himself from CUK. Eek was one of the few willing to step up to the plate on behalf on contractors, his self enforced holiday is a great shame.