• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

November 22nd - The death of contracting as we know it

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    You're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion of course
    Transparently, you've taken an anti-IPSE rant and hung it on a technical point that is pedantic at best. The term self-employment is widely used to mean "not employment", which is the antonym of employment in the relevant case law, including cases involving intermediaries, where the intermediary is cast aside in the hypothetical contract. As an aside, it's amusing that you've sought clarification from the pages of HMG/HMRC.
    Last edited by jamesbrown; 10 November 2017, 11:28.

    Comment


      My local MP is Labour, if I wrote to her I'd probably get even more short change as I'm not sure who hates contractors more at the moment so what's the point? We really don't have any friends to fight our cause on this one, even the general public have been turned against us.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Guvernator View Post
        My local MP is Labour, if I wrote to her I'd probably get even more short change as I'm not sure who hates contractors more at the moment so what's the point? We really don't have any friends to fight our cause on this one, even the general public have been turned against us.
        You won't know until you try.

        My Labour MP has a greater understanding of the issues facing us than the previous Lib Dem MP, and has always been very supportive of the issues that I've raised with her.

        "what's the point?" - if they don't understand, educate them. If they still don't understand, educate them more. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" and all that.
        Best Forum Advisor 2014
        Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
        Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

        Comment


          Originally posted by Hobosapien View Post
          Much of the confusion is due to how over the years various entities have sought to protect themselves from liabilities (employment/tax law) when wanting to offer work to an individual rather than a company.

          So we have all the hassle of individuals having to operator via a Ltd as the client/agency wouldn't offer a direct contract to the individual, yet the individual is still named on the contract as they don't want the Ltd sending just anyone to do the work the individual interviewed for.
          This is a fair observation, however I work with procurement teams and have seen all kinds of consultancy contracts where named individuals appear on the statement of work or services schedule. This includes the large consultancies including the Big 4. Getting quite common now, because end clients want transparency and for certain staff with specific skillsets to deliver the project. Yes, things really are at this micro-level regarding consultancy contracts.

          So, if that's what's happening with big consultancies, I don't think being named on a services schedule is an issue now for micro-businesses like ourselves.

          The key issues to remain outside IR35 are still the key contractual clauses that we all know off heart by now, and to ensure that your working practices mirror the contract.

          If HMRC want to run a bulldozer through all of this PS-style, then I think it will underestimate the appetite of private sector to challenge. Clients have too much to lose in terms of cost and resource flexibility - especially pre-Brexit, and recruitment agencies don't want to give up on the contractor fees model.

          Also bear in mind that the PS bodies were more likely to not put up a fight with Treasury/HMRC - they didn't want to prejudice their other agendas, e.g. funding, resources. Many private sector clients don't have this relationship with HMRC/Treasury and so aren't in the same position.
          "My God, it's huge!!"

          Comment


            Originally posted by Swamp Thing View Post
            This is a fair observation, however I work with procurement teams and have seen all kinds of consultancy contracts where named individuals appear on the statement of work or services schedule. This includes the large consultancies including the Big 4. Getting quite common now, because end clients want transparency and for certain staff with specific skillsets to deliver the project. Yes, things really are at this micro-level regarding consultancy contracts.

            So, if that's what's happening with big consultancies, I don't think being named on a services schedule is an issue now for micro-businesses like ourselves.

            The key issues to remain outside IR35 are still the key contractual clauses that we all know off heart by now, and to ensure that your working practices mirror the contract.

            If HMRC want to run a bulldozer through all of this PS-style, then I think it will underestimate the appetite of private sector to challenge. Clients have too much to lose in terms of cost and resource flexibility - especially pre-Brexit, and recruitment agencies don't want to give up on the contractor fees model.

            Also bear in mind that the PS bodies were more likely to not put up a fight with Treasury/HMRC - they didn't want to prejudice their other agendas, e.g. funding, resources. Many private sector clients don't have this relationship with HMRC/Treasury and so aren't in the same position.
            Everything SW says.

            Both my final end customers explicitly have my name on the contract between the consultancy and themselves - as I know their staff and internal systems / procedures.
            merely at clientco for the entertainment

            Comment


              Originally posted by Guvernator View Post
              My local MP is Labour, if I wrote to her I'd probably get even more short change as I'm not sure who hates contractors more at the moment so what's the point? We really don't have any friends to fight our cause on this one, even the general public have been turned against us.
              I've written to MP's before, as with most politicians they are very good at replying in a placating manner and disassembling without actually answering your question or promising to bring it up. I really wouldn't trust anything they say, If the allegedly pro small business Tories are trying to shaft us what do you think Labour think of us overpaid tax dodging contractors?

              I've also thought of something else. If they blanket IR35 everybody in the private sector like they did in the public and the majority of the Ltd company contractors decide to close up shop, what will happen to the rather large support industry that has grown up around contractors like accountants, recruitment agents etc? If I were the larger contractor accounting firms I'd be getting especially worries right about now.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Guvernator View Post
                If they blanket IR35 everybody in the private sector like they did in the public and the majority of the Ltd company contractors decide to close up shop, what will happen to the rather large support industry that has grown up around contractors like accountants, recruitment agents etc? If I were the larger contractor accounting firms I'd be getting especially worries right about now.
                I think it's been raised on this thread already, but the smart thing for recruitment agencies to do would be to develop insurance against incorrect outside IR35 assessments - assuming end clients do the likely thing which is to put the liability back onto them. I'm sure the case could be made - based on case law to date - that the incidence of incorrect assessments would be low, so that the insurable risk is manageable. If the coverage doesn't yet exist, they need to get talking with the insurance companies. The premiums could be paid out of contractor day rates (yes, I don't think we'd get off scott-free) and/or the fees charged to end clients. It just needs courage and imagination.

                It would however require the insurers to accept that case law is the true arbiter of inside/outside assessment decisions - not the crappy HMRC-rigged CEST tool.
                "My God, it's huge!!"

                Comment


                  Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
                  Transparently, you've taken an anti-IPSE rant and hung it on a technical point that is pedantic at best. The term self-employment is widely used to mean "not employment", which is the antonym of employment in the relevant case law, including cases involving intermediaries, where the intermediary is cast aside in the hypothetical contract. As an aside, it's amusing that you've sought clarification from the pages of HMG/HMRC.
                  Even more amusing is that you don't seem to see that HMRC is THE reference. They make the rules. The friends you refer to have even asked HMG and HMRC to give a LEGAL DEFINITION of what a freelance contractor is. If you can't see how muddle headed and insanely stupid that is, then you really do deserve all the IR35 s**t that's coming your way. Doesn't bother me either way, I'm out of it and have been the last 18 months, and I am not coming back any time soon.
                  Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
                  Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

                  Comment


                    Worst case scenario, contractors either:

                    - take the hit and pay for accommodation etc. out of pocket
                    - obtain contracts nearer home, which should be easier as other contractors turn down distant gigs
                    - go umbrella

                    All while charging a bit more.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
                      Even more amusing is that you don't seem to see that HMRC is THE reference. They make the rules. The friends you refer to have even asked HMG and HMRC to give a LEGAL DEFINITION of what a freelance contractor is. If you can't see how muddle headed and insanely stupid that is, then you really do deserve all the IR35 s**t that's coming your way. Doesn't bother me either way, I'm out of it and have been the last 18 months, and I am not coming back any time soon.
                      You seem bothered.

                      The reference for what exactly? The ITEPA is the reference for IR35, which applies to intermediaries. Case law is the reference for employment status, regardless of whether a worker operates through an intermediary. The irony here is that they're attempting to circumvent the rules with CEST, because the rules haven't worked in their favour. What with the judiciary being independent 'n all.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X