Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[missinggreenfields]

Bearing in mind we voted for brexit and Trump you never know. Would be interesting to see though wouldn't it?You could ask if they really should be supporting 1st line service desk and pure BAU 'contractors' at all to be fair. Representing anyone that pays membership isn't the best model.

Just being a bit glib really but maybe a topic for discussion.

Assuming you're a member, why don't you ask whether they should be supporting contractors that don't meet your standards of what a contractor is?

I can't see it making business sense to ditch a load of members, and I don't think throwing a large group of people under the bus will do anything other than say to HMRC "you do what you want".

As an alternative to chucking "the BAU/Servidedesk types under a bus", it would be much easier to chuck everyone working in the public sector under the bus instead and say to HMRC "please leave the rest of us alone" - it's a much easier demographic to pick as a starter.

[teapot418]

You're going to need a big old bus.

[northernladuk]

Assuming you're a member, why don't you ask whether they should be supporting contractors that don't meet your standards of what a contractor is?

A bod sitting on a 1st line is a contractor? Really???

I can't see it making business sense to ditch a load of members, and I don't think throwing a large group of people under the bus will do anything other than say to HMRC "you do what you want".

Again. Depends if those members really are what you are trying to defend. And I don't think it will say that to them at all. It maybe admitting the LTD model is being abused so a slight recorrection is in order.

Most don't see themselves as members either I'll bet. They are in it for the insurances. I wonder what would the lie of the land would be if it was £200 for the benefits and another £50 for membership.

As an alternative to chucking "the BAU/Servidedesk types under a bus", it would be much easier to chuck everyone working in the public sector under the bus instead and say to HMRC "please leave the rest of us alone" - it's a much easier demographic to pick as a starter.

That's completely different. We are contractors so will just get a gig out of the PS. Nothing has been achieved. Focus should be in the 'contractor' not the role.

[malvolio]

A bod sitting on a 1st line is a contractor? Really???


Again. Depends if those members really are what you are trying to defend. And I don't think it will say that to them at all. It maybe admitting the LTD model is being abused so a slight recorrection is in order.

Most don't see themselves as members either I'll bet. They are in it for the insurances. I wonder what would the lie of the land would be if it was £200 for the benefits and another £50 for membership.



That's completely different. We are contractors so will just get a gig out of the PS. Nothing has been achieved. Focus should be in the 'contractor' not the role.

Say what you like, IPSE will defend its members in line with their fairly deep research into what their members want and how its members (and by inference the rest of the contractor/freelance workforce) think they should be able to work. It doesn't matter why they join, if they have joined they are going to be represented. And that £250 membership fee delivers around £1000 a year in invisible benefits that may come in handy one day - and already have in many cases.

Also IPSE is not an autonomous unrepresentative quango of some sort, it is owned by its members and its policies are determined by contractors, nobody else. I don't think any of them are looking to commit commercial suicide by not pursuing the best interests of IPSE's membership.

[youngguy]

So, you think that there should be a separate taxation and expenses regime for "us" and "real Ltd businesses". How do you differentiate between the two camps?
...
But at the end of the day, if you think that there should be separate taxation and expenses rules applied, is that not the same kind of thing as a Limited Company for Freelancers (let's call it an LCF)?

I think there are possibly a number of camps:-
Permitractor
LCF (your term may catch on!)
Ltd (your plumber or whatever who is not a sole trader)
SME
Big globals etc

I don't pretend to have all (or any) of the answers but I do think that the risk profile and 'benefits' of each is different, and so I can see an argument for different rules .Maybe a differentiator is number of individual clients per year? The difficulty is finding something which is simple but not a blanket one size fits all when our engagement model is clearly not the same as a one man builder, a small consultancy or a Facebook.

Profit might be a good indicator for LCF,but it clearly is not for Starbucks et al who allegedly have never made a profit in the UK due to how they structure themselves. That is clearly wrong.

Someone else may say a permitractor sat at the same desk for 5 years deserves no expenses and they are clearly wrong.

As I mentioned elsewhere ,I think an FLC /LCF COULD work depending on the details .

[missinggreenfields]

A bod sitting on a 1st line is a contractor? Really???

Let's look at two things. Firstly, are they inside IR35 or not. Are they subject to supervision, direction and control? Are they obliged to accept work and the client is obliged to offer it to them? Are they lacking a right of substitution? If the answer to all three of those is "yes" then they are inside IR35. If the answer to any one of those is no then they are outside IR35.

Secondly, even if a contractor is inside IR35 (and I've accepted inside IR35 roles which aren't in support or BAU), can they still be described as a "contractor"?

So - if someone is outside IR35 but doing a role in first line support, why would they not be classed as a contractor, apart from on the NLUK definition? If someone is inside IR35 and not doing a 1st line role, does that mean that they aren't a contractor? And if someone is inside IR35 and doing a 1st line support role, does that mean that they aren't a contractor?

I'm sorry that there are some people who don't meet your definition of what a contractor is and what doesn't, but that doesn't mean that IPSE (or anyone) should be saying to HMRC "take this guy, don't come after me please".

Again. Depends if those members really are what you are trying to defend. And I don't think it will say that to them at all. It maybe admitting the LTD model is being abused so a slight recorrection is in order.

If you don't think HMRC would welcome the prospect of an industry lobby group sacrificing their members, then I think you're deluding yourself. It won't make you safe - it'll weaken any influence you had, and will mean that your demise will come quicker.

Most don't see themselves as members either I'll bet. They are in it for the insurances. I wonder what would the lie of the land would be if it was £200 for the benefits and another £50 for membership.

It might be interesting. It might be very different from what you think. However, tilting at windmills will get you nowhere.

That's completely different. We are contractors so will just get a gig out of the PS. Nothing has been achieved. Focus should be in the 'contractor' not the role.

No, it's the same stupid idea - pick a group of people who aren't me, and throw them to the wolves to protect my business.

[SueEllen]

I think there are possibly a number of camps:-
Permitractor
LCF (your term may catch on!)
Ltd (your plumber or whatever who is not a sole trader)
SME
Big globals etc

I don't pretend to have all (or any) of the answers but I do think that the risk profile and 'benefits' of each is different, and so I can see an argument for different rules .Maybe a differentiator is number of individual clients per year?

Bad idea.

For example in year 1, I have 1 client with 4 distinct projects but the in year 2 I have 4 different clients with 4 different projects.Then in year 3 I have 2 clients where one client takes up 90% of my time but the other client takes up the 10%. So according to your rule I'm only a contractor in year 2 and maybe year 3.

[northernladuk]

Say what you like, IPSE will defend its members in line with their fairly deep research into what their members want and how its members (and by inference the rest of the contractor/freelance workforce) think they should be able to work. It doesn't matter why they join, if they have joined they are going to be represented. And that £250 membership fee delivers around £1000 a year in invisible benefits that may come in handy one day - and already have in many cases.

Also IPSE is not an autonomous unrepresentative quango of some sort, it is owned by its members and its policies are determined by contractors, nobody else. I don't think any of them are looking to commit commercial suicide by not pursuing the best interests of IPSE's membership.

I get all that. I'm probably the worst type to get into these discussions. I'm not close enough or political enough to understand these organisations yet throw the odd bombs in from time to time that probably frustrate the serious lot.

I just struggle with comments around the deep researching to what it's members want and then say anyone can be a member and it's worthwhile purely on a financial basis. Surely that means they are going have to defend everyone against everything. Surely a narrower focus which would result in most people doing it properly winning (or not changing) with a bit of collateral damage be better than no one winning at all?

As I say I probably don't understand and am possibly doing more harm than good so I'll drop it here.

[youngguy]

Bad idea.

For example in year 1, I have 1 client with 4 distinct projects but the in year 2 I have 4 different clients with 4 different projects.Then in year 3 I have 2 clients where one client takes up 90% of my time but the other client takes up the 10%. So according to your rule I'm only a contractor in year 2 and maybe year 3.

Not necessarily that you are not a contractor, but maybe the end of yr taxation falls under different rules. Much like IR35, you can be in sometimes and then out. Of the perceived risk is lower maybe the tax (and employee benefits?!) Is higher.....

Its a bit of spitballing, point is I am increasingly wondering however whether there is a one size fits all and Gov are not going to accept the status quo.

[jamesbrown]

can they still be described as a "contractor"?

It's really quite simple IMO. There are two groups of contractors. One group comprises exploited workers that would prefer to become employees of their end clients (whether temporary or permanent, but with employment benefits and protections). The other group comprises contractors that have explicitly decided that permanent employment is not for them, for a whole multitude of possible reasons. Let's not become too snobby about what constitutes a "legitimate" contractor.

This discussion is really about tax and different perceptions about who is more deserving of a particular tax treatment. In my view, that's the wrong way to look at it. It isn't for us to decide how the tax system should introduce incentives or disincentives for particular ways of working. We can make a case about the flexible workforce, and the chips can fall where they may. But what we should expect is a framework that is based on evidence, rather than made-up numbers, and one that is consistent. You can't (in fairness) propose to classify someone as both a disguised employee and an employer for tax purposes and a contractor/self-employed worker for employment law purposes.

This is one reason that I don't have a massive problem with dividend taxation, if I'm really honest about it (obviously, no one likes to pay more tax ). There's nothing inconsistent about it (there are many forms of "double" taxation, and this isn't a particularly egregious example) and it doesn't involve subjective decisions about who might be a "legitimate contractor" versus a "tax-avoiding, scumbag, disguised employee".