Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[eek]

Don't let eek hear you say that - his website saved the day for T&S!

Possibly, possibly not. What it did provide was evidence to show the impact on one particular set of workers (ourselves) that meant the unions I spoke too were happy to tone down their desire for a blanket ban on expenses for limited companies.

It also provided evidence to HMRC of the impact it would have on our customers, that we mainly replaced expensive consultancies rather than permanent staff and the distance we travelled.

What I do know is that some people I talk to (and IPSE do not) believe that my evidence was far more compelling and successful than others pretend - hint the result looks exactly what both myself and the unions I speak to were hoping for.

I will leave it at that - but note how little effort I am making in fighting this done deal. Let's see if IPSE can deliver...

[Hobosapien]

if these discussions are happening with hind closed doors what pressure will hmrc fee!l

Depends who is behind those closed doors involved in the discussion. Isn't that where a lot of the real lobbying goes on?

Looking in from outside at least the members know their fees will be paying for some lovely sandwiches.

[nucastle]

The calculators may not be 100% accurate but as a rough estimate they will be correct.

My advice even if you think rates will rise is that you need to leave. Rates will only increase if supply disappears and if you are happily sat at a desk in HMRC or dwp (taking a wild guess from your username) HMRC / dwp won't need to increase the rare for your job

Good point, and personally I can't see sitting contractors suddenly getting big pay rises for whining a bit.

[SueEllen]

Possibly, possibly not. What it did provide was evidence to show the impact on one particular set of workers (ourselves) that meant the unions I spoke too were happy to tone down their desire for a blanket ban on expenses for limited companies.

It also provided evidence to HMRC of the impact it would have on our customers, that we mainly replaced expensive consultancies rather than permanent staff and the distance we travelled.

What I do know is that some people I talk to (and IPSE do not) believe that my evidence was far more compelling and successful than others pretend - hint the result looks exactly what both myself and the unions I speak to were hoping for.

I will leave it at that - but note how little effort I am making in fighting this done deal. Let's see if IPSE can deliver...

Your evidence and some others made it clear what the issues where with research to back it up. I actually asked a few other contractors to help with some of the research that was being collected.

IPSE's on the other hand was lacking detail and only concerned with members. Fair enough because it is a membership organisation but one easy way of getting more members is to show leadership in a tough situation. Unions actually do this in workplaces for example when they are negotiating to save jobs and yes they do get more members.

[missinggreenfields]

I asked what I could be doing

I think it's probably something like:

- Make sure as many contractors you know know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Make sure that as many clients as possible know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as you can.

At the moment, the consultation is still running - and the more people that respond with details of how this is a bad thing (whether that's because it's bad for the public sector, bad for the individual, bad because of the implementation and on-going costs, bad because the tool cannot reflect the case law accuratley, bad because there is so much uncertainty about expenses) then the more likely this is to be stopped or restricted.

I'm surprised that people need telling to try to get people involved in the consultation, though.

[missinggreenfields]

the result looks exactly what both myself and the unions I speak to were hoping for.

And that's why we should never believe that the individual can't make a difference. Don't be coy, we know that it was all down to you and your website

[IPSE]

I asked why the secrecy - you did not answer.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post2288654

I asked what I could be doing - you did not answer.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post2288654

I asked why there were no updates on your site - you did not answer .

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post2288654

I asked if you planned to do/say anything post the meeting minutes saying this was a done deal......no answer for that either I suspect ?

The "meeting minutes" are a recollection published in news story of a consultation meeting. Of course HMRC go into these with a view as to consulting on "how" and, sometimes, "when", not "if". It is not within the authority of HMRC officials to discuss the "if" - their policies are, believe it or not, set by their political masters.

[teapot418]

The treasury minutes are here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...m_9323_Web.pdf

page 10 -

4: Committee of Public Accounts conclusion:
The Committee is not convinced that Departments are doing all they can to ensure that
temporary staff pay the right tax. ̘

Recommendation:
HM Treasury should re-evaluate its guidelines to departments in the light of Budget 2016. It
should also require that departments immediately review whether their off-payroll staff should
be on PAYE and, after April 2017 that departments review the calculation of tax for a sample of
any temporary staff who continue to be contracted as a company.


4.1 The Government accepts the Committee’s recommendation.
Target implementation date: April 2017.

4.2 The Treasury will consider whether its guidelines need amending following the Budget 2016
announcement of proposed reform in the public sector of the tax legislation on off-payroll limited company
workers. HM Revenue and Customs published a consultation on these changes on 6 May 2016.
Following this, the Treasury will consider whether changes to the guidelines are necessary. The existing
guidance will continue to require departments to review whether off-payroll staff should be on PAYE. After
April 2017, the new tax rules announced at Budget 2016 will apply.

Context is everything...

[eek]

I think it's probably something like:

- Make sure as many contractors you know know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Make sure that as many clients as possible know about the proposal, and encourage them to respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as they can.

- Respond to the consultation with as much fact-based information as you can.

At the moment, the consultation is still running - and the more people that respond with details of how this is a bad thing (whether that's because it's bad for the public sector, bad for the individual, bad because of the implementation and on-going costs, bad because the tool cannot reflect the case law accuratley, bad because there is so much uncertainty about expenses) then the more likely this is to be stopped or restricted.

I'm surprised that people need telling to try to get people involved in the consultation, though.

All the above but note Teapot418's treasury notes above.

This deal is probably done - for those tasked with delivery the consequences of not dealing with it is ridicule (or worse) in Private Eye and the papers alongside a change of department or role from their nice office in Whitehall to a desk somewhere near Kings Cross....

Which is why I'm not spending any time campaigning on this - I have sent a letter but if you understand what's about to happen you are better spending time finding a safe position from which you can watch the disaster unfold....

[malvolio]

I have....no answer

Easy to say without providing evidence

Loads of evidence, including many long conversations with the people at the sharp end - inside IPSE...