And the first leg is removed

[eek]

I have said this enough times already, they want everyone to pay their fair share" of taxes. From the AS today, I think it's been posted somewhere already on the forum:



That bit made me shudder. We have already had the dividend tax. VFRS now getting hit, I wouldn't be surprised to see what is happening in the public sector get pushed out to the private sector. 2019? Possibly. December 5th, can't wait

They need to battle employment, self employment and the gig economy in such a way that tax will still be collectable. They haven't done so in 40 years so they aren't going to do so now and unless they do it now its too late...

Either way it the Uber tribunal gives me more cause for hope than I otherwise would have had today.

[northernladuk]

I'm struggling with that 36% figure. On the face of it that seems incredibly low. Thinking about it more I just can't get my head around it. Does that include the large majority of people that are sitting the completely oblivious to all this or was the audience generally in the know. Was it a good cross section so the other 64% are the ones that haven't a clue? Does it include the people that plan to or have already bailed before it hits etc. The number doesnt mean anything to me.

Or most likely... Have I got it all wrong?

[SueEllen]

Go back and look at example 3 (I think) in the consultation document. Were they to provide you to a public sector agency / department they would be fully in their rights to say sorry this contract is inside IR35 - We can however offer you this nice permie job which will allow you to claim expenses....

They have been offering the same roles as permie and contract roles but haven't been able to fill them, so just being able to offer them as permie roles leaves them with a bigger problem.

[eek]

They have been offering the same roles as permie and contract roles but haven't been able to fill them, so just being able to offer them as permie roles leaves them with a bigger problem.

That's a problem then as based on the documentation we currently have those roles are inside IR35...

[Antman]

I'm struggling with that 36% figure. On the face of it that seems incredibly low. Thinking about it more I just can't get my head around it. Does that include the large majority of people that are sitting the completely oblivious to all this or was the audience generally in the know. Was it a good cross section so the other 64% are the ones that haven't a clue? Does it include the people that plan to or have already bailed before it hits etc. The number doesnt mean anything to me.

Or most likely... Have I got it all wrong?

Where I'm going back to next week, most have not a clue about this. The general attitude when I mentioned it previously was "naah, never going to happen"

I'd say 36% was on the high side!

[CDJ]

They need to battle employment, self employment and the gig economy in such a way that tax will still be collectable. They haven't done so in 40 years so they aren't going to do so now and unless they do it now its too late...

Either way it the Uber tribunal gives me more cause for hope than I otherwise would have had today.

Interesting point re the Uber ruling - its all well and good the agency or PS department not wanting to take the risk with compliance and declaring everyone IR35.. but then if they are not bang on with the contracts, are they not just opening the door to a lot of employment tribunal cases??

[Gordon Ice]

Calm down dear..

Ok, not afraid to admit that I'm slightly perplexed as to why this is turning into such a big deal..

At it's most basic we're dealing with a RISK and it's the same risk that has existed since the beginning of IR35 - that a contractor will be found to be inside IR35 and additional liabilities, penalities & interest will be due. The only difference now is that the RISK OWNER has changed. As with all business risks a suitable mitigation is required and my proposal is as follows:

1. Agency & Contractor agree that the role is outside IR35, produce an "IR35 friendly" contract (i.e. contains all the classical MOO, Substitution, Control clauses) and insert additional clauses whereby the contractor agrees to indemnify the Agency for all losses in the event that an "inside IR35" verdict is later given.
2. Contractor obtains a professional contract review confirming an "outside IR35" position (recognising that working practice judgements will be based on "intended" practices where this is prior to the contract start).
3. Contractor takes out an insurance policy to cover the liabilities should they be found inside IR35 (correct me if I'm wrong but don't these already exist? - Qdos?)
4. Agency, Contractor & Client agree to review the working practices (e.g. after 3 months - and let's face it, it's in no-one's interests to enact an employer/employee relationship) to confirm that the contract isn't a sham.
5. Keep calm and carry on; oh, and stick two fingers up at the imbeciles who profess to be competent at running this country (you know who you are)

So why would everyone go along with this? Well..
- Contractor = No real change and still making a decent living
- Client = Can still attract contractors without blowing the budget
- Agent = Still in business
- Insurance Industry = Profit
- IPSE = Membership sales
- HMRC = No choice in the matter, still not enough resources to administer IR35, and will still lose over 90% of cases that go to court since the IR35 legislation isn't changing

So what am I missing?

[jamesbrown]

So what am I missing?

Quite a lot. To begin with, your indemnity clause is worth feck all to an agent or client as YourCo will fold at will, and no agency is going to expose itself to an indefinite loss. Also, there's joint and several liability, so HMG can pursue anyone in the chain, in any order. You can imagine who they'll start with. The agent is in business either way. Why would they both with this faff versus requiring you to operate inside IR35 or, better still, through an affiliated umbrella? Granted, this creates a problem for recruitment within the PS while the responsibility and liability remains unchanged in the private sector, but they'll correct that imbalance eventually.

[northernladuk]

And why would and agency takenon the risk and liabilities of something it has no control over?

[Gordon Ice]

Quite a lot. To begin with, your indemnity clause is worth feck all to an agent or client as YourCo will fold at will, and no agency is going to expose itself to an indefinite loss. Also, there's joint and several liability, so HMG can pursue anyone in the chain, in any order. You can imagine who they'll start with. The agent is in business either way. Why would they both with this faff versus requiring you to operate inside IR35 or, better still, through an affiliated umbrella? Granted, this creates a problem for recruitment within the PS while the responsibility and liability remains unchanged in the private sector, but they'll correct that imbalance eventually.

So I guess everyone is royally shafted then until contractors work out how to consistently get a pass from the vapourware that is the IR35 Online Tool, and the first cases pass through court.