Will contracting go out with a bang or a whimper?

[jamesbrown]

I'm not sure this is even a comparable situation. For two reasons:

1)MPs are in full-time employment, and their employment contract allows claiming certain things back as expenses; every employer has slightly different policies so MPs for example don't get 1st-class train travel. By contrast we are operating as limited companies, or as freelancers, for multiple clients.

2)Travelling is a mandatory part of an MP's job. They cannot (I think) choose not to do it. By contrast, contractors choose where they work and live and do not have to take work which requires them to work away.

Not saying I agree with the T&S changes (I don't) just that "you get it, why can't we" is not a strong argument outside of Facebook meme graphics.

How are MPs in full-time employment? They are not employees (although they are taxed as such), they are office holders and, indeed, their offices can and do employ others. They didn't receive any pay until the early 20th C., and even now it's considered an allowance rather than a salary. Also, Malcolm Rifkind may think he's self-employed, but he isn't (at least, not as an MP ).

[d000hg]

MPs receive a fixed salary, which is liable to income tax. Sounds like employment to me.

[BoredBloke]

I wasn't meaning how they are employed, I was talking about their need to live away from home and the resulting need for expenses. Add to that the possible short term nature of an MP's stint in a constituency and you have a number of similarities to what contractors face when working away from home.

[jamesbrown]

MPs receive a fixed salary, which is liable to income tax. Sounds like employment to me.

It doesn't really matter what it sounds like to you, it's a factual question. They pay tax through PAYE, but they are not employees. See here, for example.

[TheFaQQer]

MPs receive a fixed salary, which is liable to income tax. Sounds like employment to me.

Or it sounds like they are office holders, remunerated for the office they hold.

[WordIsBond]

1)MPs are in full-time employment, and their employment contract allows claiming certain things back as expenses; every employer has slightly different policies so MPs for example don't get 1st-class train travel. By contrast we are operating as limited companies, or as freelancers, for multiple clients.

So I guess I should write an employment contract that allows for claiming certain things back as expenses, and then HMRC will leave me alone?

The tax proposed is not on our limited companies, but on their employees and/or office-holders. There is a strong parallel between contractors and MPs.

Supervision, direction, and control?

When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.

[d000hg]

But everyone knows we're PSCs or temporary employees using a Ltd as a vehicle for convenience

[BrilloPad]

But everyone knows we're PSCs or temporary employees using a Ltd as a vehicle for convenience

That is what HMRC think. And only their opinion matters.

They have APNs and bank account raiding they can deploy at will.

[WordIsBond]

But everyone knows we're PSCs or temporary employees using a Ltd as a vehicle for convenience

Doesn't matter.

We're either employees/office-holders of our Ltd or of our client, but they are taking away expenses.

MPs are office-holders, and get to keep their expenses.

The situation isn't identical, but the parallel is strong enough to show the injustice of it.

[mudskipper]

Doesn't matter.

We're either employees/office-holders of our Ltd or of our client, but they are taking away expenses.

MPs are office-holders, and get to keep their expenses.

The situation isn't identical, but the parallel is strong enough to show the injustice of it.

I don't think you want to be arguing that we're office holders. Office holder = IR35 caught.