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

[DotasScandal]

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.

Seriously, that's what you are afraid of?
What your members expect from you is that you use your resources to turn conspiracy theory into conspiracy FACT. Produce a solid alternative economic model. HMRC can only continue peddling their narrative year in and year out because they are never called on their BS. Expose it and then you'll really be doing your job. Sometimes you have to say thing as they are.

[youngguy]

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.

Did you not get the memo? It's a done deal. Your lobbying is quite probably too little and too late. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong and if IPSE have a smoking gun they are going to unveil I will apologise!

[westtester]

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.

The question of increased rates was raised at my last site and not an option. So a mass exodus is happening instead from the end of August when the new rules are being enforced. Interestingly, some permies were also reconsidering their position at the prospect of having to pick up the tulip that contractors normally do.

[missinggreenfields]

The question of increased rates was raised at my last site and not an option. So a mass exodus is happening instead from the end of August when the new rules are being enforced. Interestingly, some permies were also reconsidering their position at the prospect of having to pick up the tulip that contractors normally do.

The more people that do this the better.

Although then we'll be complaining about private sector rates dropping because of a saturated market.

[DotasScandal]

Interestingly, some permies were also reconsidering their position at the prospect of having to pick up the tulip that contractors normally do.

But but but.... I thought permies and contractors are doing the exact same job? (HMRC told me so)

Simply put, It's gonna be unintented consequences galore - Same as every time HMRC forces through a short-sighted, cash grab-oriented policy.

These morons just never learn.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This non-compliance is estimated to cost the Exchequer £440m in tax year 2016 to 2017.

We will certainly ask them how they arrived at this figure

Might be worth an FOI request. They'd be hard pressed to refuse when the estimate has been touted in a public document.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

[eek]

Might be worth an FOI request. They'd be hard pressed to refuse when the estimate has been touted in a public document.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

I'm still wait for a response to the number of people paid via either an umbrella or limited company (i.e. just the grand total information from the agency payment regulations)....

Given that I could tell them what the sql query would be the claim that it would be too expensive really doesn't wash. But that is the response I received...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FOI - £440m PSC non-compliance

[teapot418]

Running figures through a calculator - £400 a day, 44 weeks a year, 6K pension contributions you end up with around £10K a year extra tax liability if IR35 caught (rough figures)

So that would be 44,000 PSCs who should be'IR35 caught' but not declaring themselves as such. According to the doc, 10% of those that should be are, so that's a total of 49,000 IR35 caught PSCs - back of fag packet calculation.

From previous discussion doc, there are 265,000 PSCs.

I haven't got a gut feel for whether 49,000 of 265,000 is too high, too low or about right - any thoughts?

[LondonManc]

Running figures through a calculator - £400 a day, 44 weeks a year, 6K pension contributions you end up with around £10K a year extra tax liability if IR35 caught (rough figures)

So that would be 44,000 PSCs who should be'IR35 caught' but not declaring themselves as such. According to the doc, 10% of those that should be are, so that's a total of 49,000 IR35 caught PSCs - back of fag packet calculation.

From previous discussion doc, there are 265,000 PSCs.

I haven't got a gut feel for whether 49,000 of 265,000 is too high, too low or about right - any thoughts?

What's a PSC?