Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[eek]

Not so sure it's the agencies responsibilities or within their risk profile to state that? They advertise the role. It's up-to us to decide no?

They run the online test and pass the result on. The question is can HMRC query the result (as if they can you are doomed)...

You only have to look at Example 3 to show how likely you are to be caught be this (hint you are caught by it).

[youngguy]

The key Q for me is 1) when do we get to see the digital tool and 2) how much do I need to raise my day rate by to cover the extra 'taxes'

[northernladuk]

The key Q for me is 1) when do we get to see the digital tool and 2) how much do I need to raise my day rate by to cover the extra 'taxes'

2) is never going to work. Why do people suggest this?

[eek]

The key Q for me is 1) when do we get to see the digital tool and 2) how much do I need to raise my day rate by to cover the extra 'taxes'

1) Caught (all options will take you there).. If they don't HMRC appeal mechanism will ensure the decision is Caught....

2) won't work as market rate is market rate.

[malvolio]

Not so sure it's the agencies responsibilities or within their risk profile to state that? They advertise the role. It's up-to us to decide no?

No, not in the slightest.

The responsibility is with the hirer in the case of a direct contract, the agency if there is only one, or the agency nearest the PSC if there are multiple agencies (which, given HMC's ClOne process is most of them). Since most agencies belong to one or other big chain, then they will harmonise their efforts and say everyone is caught, leaving it to you to take it to court if you disagree - by which time you won't have a job anyway.

Also, for the same reason, this will move to the private sector in very short order.

It's also clear that HMRC have totally disregarded the previous consultation and gone their own, unworkable way. They are also explicitly denying any thought of us gaining employment rights in exchange for employment taxation levels. Time for us all to get behind IPSE and attack this proposal vigorously.

[eek]

No, not in the slightest.

The responsibility is with the hirer in the case of a direct contract, the agency if there is only one, or the agency nearest the PSC if there are multiple agencies (which, given HMC's ClOne process is most of them). Since most agencies belong to one or other big chain, then they will harmonise their efforts and say everyone is caught, leaving it to you to take it to court if you disagree - by which time you won't have a job anyway.

Also, for the same reason, this will move to the private sector in very short order.

It's also clear that HMRC have totally disregarded the previous consultation and gone their own, unworkable way. They are also explicitly denying any thought of us gaining employment rights in exchange for employment taxation levels. Time for us all to get behind IPSE and attack this proposal vigorously.

Unison and the GMB alongside the other unions will have a field day when they see this destruction of employment rights by the back door.... (Still haven't read everything in detail so thanks for the heads up).

Need to make a few phone calls next week...

[jamesbrown]

It's also clear that HMRC have totally disregarded the previous consultation and gone their own, unworkable way. They are also explicitly denying any thought of us gaining employment rights in exchange for employment taxation levels. Time for us all to get behind IPSE and attack this proposal vigorously.

Yep. But on your last point, let's see how that pans out. I think they're being hopelessly optimistic, as there's already case law precedent against this distinction in very similar circumstances. Whether or not it makes us feel uncomfortable as independent professionals, it is a valid point of law on which to fight, and I'm certain it will be pursued (if, for no other reason, than to demonstrate the unworkable distinction between tax and employment law, going forward, when tax law is essentially dictated by the client).

There are a couple of Gov't responses to the original consultation with which I agree (e.g. length of contract, withholding tax), but the new consultation pays hardly any attention to what was said, and it will be entirely unworkable IMO. There will be a blanket determination of inside. Guaranteed. There will be a mass exodus to the private sector, with FTC becoming the de facto approach in Gov't. For the same reason, everyone expects that it will be rolled out to the private sector, where the response would be the same. Ergo, the destruction of the flexible economy. However, I don't think a rollout to the private sector is completely set in stone, and I don't think it will happen until 2019/20 at the earliest. They're using this staged approach to gauge the response. If it goes smoothly (), it's bound to be extended.

[Forgotmylogin]

2) is never going to work. Why do people suggest this?

1) Caught (all options will take you there).. If they don't HMRC appeal mechanism will ensure the decision is Caught....

2) won't work as market rate is market rate.

Market rates change. One reason rates may change is if costs go up.

This isn't the same as the two year rule, or even existing IR35, where some contractors either ignored or were completely ignorant of their responsibilities. In theory, if this were to go ahead, it would be shoved in their faces and they'd know that they faced additional costs.

[teapot418]

Maybe simplistic, but if HMG wants contractors to be taxed as employees, they should issue an edict saying that gov depts cannot engage contractors - i.e. everyone who works for them becomes an employee (with associated rights, pension etc...). They can't have their cake and eat it.

[jamesbrown]

They can't have their cake and eat it.

Oh, but that's exactly what they want. Have cake, will eat. Still have cake.

That isn't how it will end, of course, but that's their starting position.