Finance bill 2016

[moggy]

Contractor body backs T&S loophole closure :: Contractor UK

hmmm..

[jamesbrown]

Contractor body backs T&S loophole closure :: Contractor UK

hmmm..

In think their understanding (or at least how they've communicated what they understand) is wrong. Indeed, were it necessary to consider SDC, additionally, when outside of IR35 it would render the carve outs for IR35 in clauses (4) and (5) moot, because SDC would be the determining factor, not IR35. I suspect the correct interpretation is a much narrower one, in relation to MSCs (i.e. PSCs that are being managed by umbrella companies, rather than offering umbrella services directly), and not in relation to PSCs in general (indeed, if the MSC legislation applies, it is that legislation that must be complied with, not IR35). If I'm right - and it will take an lawyer to confirm, but it needs to be confirmed for obvious reasons - then whomever designed that press release needs a slap.

Anyway, If I were IPSE or similar, I'd be following up on this, because it is either a very misleading press release, or a very serious issue indeed.

[mudskipper]

I wouldn't describe them as a "contractor body". They're a body of accountants and umbrellas.

Unfortunately it's in the interests of brollies to push the "we're all in it together" message, and spread a bit of uncertainty.

[jamesbrown]

I wouldn't describe them as a "contractor body". They're a body of accountants and umbrellas.

Unfortunately it's in the interests of brollies to push the "we're all in it together" message, and spread a bit of uncertainty.

Either way - but especially if they've done it deliberately - they need to be called out on this if they're wrong (e.g. by IPSE), because it will otherwise have the desired effect of propagating misinformation.

[mudskipper]

Either way - but especially if they've done it deliberately - they need to be called out on this if they're wrong (e.g. by IPSE), because it will otherwise have the desired effect of propagating misinformation.

Confirmation from IPSE

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/contract...n-direction-or

and the original article has been corrected too.

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/001...e_closure.html

[jamesbrown]

Here you go

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/contract...n-direction-or

Excellent, job well done.

[jamesbrown]

It would be good if we could get the CUK article pulled or corrected. I'll PM admin, unless someone has done that already?

I wouldn't be too surprised if this was a case of FSCA reading what they wanted to see, without thinking about it too carefully. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. Either way, it does nothing for their reputation. I've seen other umbrella companies trying to spread FUD in the hope that their clients won't switch to a Ltd company. TBH, I doubt many will, because there are other factors, but it won't help their cause to lie about the situation.

[jamesbrown]

and the original article has been corrected too.

Contractor body backs T&S loophole closure :: Contractor UK

Wow, that was quick Thanks.

Edit: I see their clarification now refers to managed PSCs (i.e. MSCs), which I concur is the correct interpretation, in my non-expert opinion.

[mudskipper]

Wow, that was quick Thanks.

Edit: I see their clarification now refers to managed PSCs (i.e. MSCs), which I concur is the correct interpretation, in my non-expert opinion.

Indeedy.

[TheFaQQer]

Wow, that was quick Thanks.

Edit: I see their clarification now refers to managed PSCs (i.e. MSCs), which I concur is the correct interpretation, in my non-expert opinion.

The article was corrected earlier today to add the "managed" clarification.