Employment status overview

[webberg]

It always makes me nervous when HMRC (or bodies associated with them such as Treasury or OTS) start using words like "certainty".

I think I read somewhere that the ESI tool most often defaults to "don't know" effectively. It would not take much to default it to "employee/IR35".

Tools like this meant for mass use will always go for the lowest common denominator and allied with HMG desire to collect more tax I think that the cynicism mentioned above is a lot closer to realism than is comfortable.

[MarkT]

It always makes me nervous when HMRC (or bodies associated with them such as Treasury or OTS) start using words like "certainty".

I think I read somewhere that the ESI tool most often defaults to "don't know" effectively. It would not take much to default it to "employee/IR35".

Tools like this meant for mass use will always go for the lowest common denominator and allied with HMG desire to collect more tax I think that the cynicism mentioned above is a lot closer to realism than is comfortable.

The ESI is the most worrying thing of all, mind you if we knew what the questions were it'd help hugely......so who's brave enough to be first up?

[jamesbrown]

Not sure I agree with you. It's better that some of us did something like respond to the consultations, write to or visit MPs and so on. There are far too many apathetic contractors out there who will take no action and then whine when the changes impact them. Even if the end result is nothing, I'm glad I did something rather than just be a passenger.

I've little doubt this isn't over yet and as many others have said we'll have to wait and see what further announcements are made in the coming weeks/months.

FWIW, I did all of those things (wrote to my MP, responded to both consultations), but I'm under no illusions whatsoever.

[jamesbrown]

The ESI is the most worrying thing of all, mind you if we knew what the questions were it'd help hugely......so who's brave enough to be first up?

Currently, the ESI isn't designed for us. That said, as long as you have a legitimate RoS as a sole trader, you'll pass. I can't see that applying in future if they decide to extend the ESI to us, but it isn't clear they will (the rejection of no. 16 in the response from Gauke essentially leaves all options open).

[webberg]

The ESI is a very generic and therefore blunt instrument but it's quite worrying that it's seen as a base for what should be a sophisticated test.

However I'd agree that the "consultation" and "discussion" is nothing of the sort. The die is already cast and the agenda is clear - as many contractors as possible should be paying tax as close to employee rates as possible.

The legal status of the ESI tool could be interesting. It's a given that if the tax rules are made more complex as they attempt to define the indefinable then the avoiding of the written parameters becomes easier. Fitting in with or outside of strict rules is relatively easy.

To make the tool have any impact it has to be subject to law. That means, not just the algorithm used, but the reasons for that algorithm and that will lead to a lot of arguments about how the largely Judge led definitions and dicta will be applied.

[TheFaQQer]

All these letters to MPs and efforts in lobbying make feck all difference, as should be evident from the way many others (with a louder voice than ours) were hit in the AS.

I disagree.

Fact-based evidence makes a big difference, and those that responded to the consultations, contacted their MP, and got involved in the campaign all deserve credit for the impact that their contribution made.

[mudskipper]

However I'd agree that the "consultation" and "discussion" is nothing of the sort.

The T&S proposal did change in light of responses to the consultation. I know it's not the best news for brollies, but it does make sense - if you're a disguised employee, then you don't get T&S, if you're not, you do.

Of course, as has been pointed out, it does rather depend on who becomes a "disguised employee" in the future.

[jamesbrown]

I disagree.

Fact-based evidence makes a big difference, and those that responded to the consultations, contacted their MP, and got involved in the campaign all deserve credit for the impact that their contribution made.

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please" - Mark Twain.

Then we disagree. Fact-based evidence makes very little difference unless it is consistent with the intended direction of policy. Otherwise, for example, the central "facts" surrounding the expected tax revenues from a tightening of policy (£400m) would've been revised in response to the quite obvious accusation that they don't account for the forthcoming dividend tax increases. Facts are disputable, manipulable, and contextual. Intentions and actions are clear.

Ultimately, quite soon, we'll see who's correct. If my cynicism is misplaced, I will happily retract and renew my faith in the political process

[jamesbrown]

The ESI is a very generic and therefore blunt instrument but it's quite worrying that it's seen as a base for what should be a sophisticated test.

However I'd agree that the "consultation" and "discussion" is nothing of the sort. The die is already cast and the agenda is clear - as many contractors as possible should be paying tax as close to employee rates as possible.

The legal status of the ESI tool could be interesting. It's a given that if the tax rules are made more complex as they attempt to define the indefinable then the avoiding of the written parameters becomes easier. Fitting in with or outside of strict rules is relatively easy.

To make the tool have any impact it has to be subject to law. That means, not just the algorithm used, but the reasons for that algorithm and that will lead to a lot of arguments about how the largely Judge led definitions and dicta will be applied.

Agreed. In other words, recommendations 17-21 in Gauke's response are inseparable (no. 21 being the "statutory employment test").

[DotasScandal]

However I'd agree that the "consultation" and "discussion" is nothing of the sort.

You mean just like this "consultation" ?

Gauke's idea of a "discussion" can be summed up by the proverbial "boot trampling a mouth" image. Just look at the guy, FFS! Textbook sociopath.