You're probably not going to like this - we certainly don't

[LondonManc]

Agreed, but I'd love to see all PS contractors up their rates, demand contract changes to give get out clauses etc which would resuklt in no overall change to how much Gov gets in tax.

Bless. You're assuming contractors understand the implications of being inside IR35.

[westtester]

Bless. You're assuming contractors understand the implications of being inside IR35.

If they don't now, then the first demand for a deemed payment is likely to make them look into it.

[DotasScandal]

Every time that number appears in the press or any public statement, it needs to be mocked unmercifully. "Any ten year old knows that's wrong." Any reporter who reports that number should be contacted by a reputable organisation like IPSE, and told, "These numpties can't even do maths. Want to hear about it?" Every time it appears, IPSE should contact their insider friends in government and say, "That's a lying number. These people are idiots. When are you going to do anything about them?"

Every time, it should be documented, and when there is a nice long list, go to the new Chancellor and the Self Employment Czar (or whatever they call him these days) and say, "Your government is consistently lying to the public, it has gone on long enough that we believe it is an intentional and malicious coordinated campaign, we're going to go to the press with this, and we're going to start bringing it up IN COURT on IR35 cases to show that HMRC is engaging in a dishonest, adversarial approach to IR35, and that their subjective evaluations cannot be relied upon. That's what happens if you don't fix this."

IPSE may have cozy relationships with some people, but you can't have cozy relationships with people who are lying about your issues and know they are and won't fix it. And not everyone in positions of power is willing to lie for HMRC. If IPSE isn't ready to go to war on something that is an obvious question of fact and is being used repeatedly in propaganda against contractors, why does IPSE actually exist as a lobbying organisation?

Excellent points. Thanks for this post.

[DotasScandal]

Your government is consistently lying to the public, it has gone on long enough that we believe it is an intentional and malicious coordinated campaign"

Again, something that APN'ers will be very familiar with.
How often does your Government lie to you?

The lies DO get debunked on a regular basis by various parties, the problem is that this info stays confined to specialist blogs or the professional press - to HMRC's delight no doubt.
IPSE does have the reach and size necessary to crack the can of worms open in earnest, but maybe they want to stay "cosy" with whoever they are "cosy" with. And if that's the case, that is a problem.

[LondonManc]

If they don't now, then the first demand for a deemed payment is likely to make them look into it.

My point entirely. I don't think you'll see the full fall out on this until mid-summer 2017.

[IPSE]

Again, something that APN'ers will be very familiar with.
How often does your Government lie to you?

The lies DO get debunked on a regular basis by various parties, the problem is that this info stays confined to specialist blogs or the professional press - to HMRC's delight no doubt.
IPSE does have the reach and size necessary to crack the can of worms open in earnest, but maybe they want to stay "cosy" with whoever they are "cosy" with. And if that's the case, that is a problem.

Agreed, we should attack their figures again - no-one really understands HMRCs numbers - including the House of Lords Select Committee on Personal Service Companies . HMRC never give any explanation where they come from or try to validate them.

In the current consultation document it says:

“However, evidence shows there is widespread non-compliance with the intermediaries legislation. The government estimates only one in ten PSCs who should be operating the rules on at least part of their income are doing so. This non-compliance is estimated to cost the Exchequer £440m in tax year 2016 to 2017. This figure takes into account the changes to the taxation of dividends from April 2016.” [my emphasis]

We will certainly ask them how they arrived at this figure but I think it’s difficult for us to take the line that government is ‘lying’. We can say we disagree/don’t understand how they’ve made that calculation, but if we say they are lying it'd probably make us look like crazy conspiracy theorists.

We do agree with the essence of your point though – that IPSE should challenge these figures.

[eek]

Agreed, we should attack their figures again - no-one really understands HMRCs numbers - including the House of Lords Select Committee on Personal Service Companies . HMRC never give any explanation where they come from or try to validate them.

In the current consultation document it says:

“However, evidence shows there is widespread non-compliance with the intermediaries legislation. The government estimates only one in ten PSCs who should be operating the rules on at least part of their income are doing so. This non-compliance is estimated to cost the Exchequer £440m in tax year 2016 to 2017. This figure takes into account the changes to the taxation of dividends from April 2016.” [my emphasis]

We will certainly ask them how they arrived at this figure but I think it’s difficult for us to take the line that government is ‘lying’. We can say we disagree/don’t understand how they’ve made that calculation, but if we say they are lying it'd probably make us look like crazy conspiracy theorists.

We do agree with the essence of your point though – that IPSE should challenge these figures.

Perhaps you could ask why the figure didn't change between 1999 and 2016-17 when the dividend tax clearly should have an impact on the difference....

[MrMarkyMark]

Perhaps you could ask why the figure didn't change between 1999 and 2016-17 when the dividend tax clearly should have an impact on the difference....

Good point

[youngguy]

Bless. You're assuming contractors understand the implications of being inside IR35.

Fair! Most I've spoken to don't know about IR35_let alone this coming change....

[youngguy]

If that was likely and feasible it would already be happening to offset the risk of the IR35 tax.

Besides it's not just the financial impact but all the hassle with the new paper trail, such as how it will impact ltd company activity and accounts if there's this pre-invoice payment being taken by the agency.

Agreed. I fully expect agencies and accountants to factor the extra costs into their prices .

Oversimplification I know but if extra costs to a contractor is, say, 20% they can then say to the PS 'My rate is now x + 20% take it or leave it'. If there is a mass exodus and demand/supply alters then PS depts nay have no choice.