back to article Take Sajid Javid's comments on IR35 UK contractor rules with a bucket of salt, warns tax guru

Conservative Party claims they may review the extension of IR35 tax rules to the UK private sector have been called into question by a tax expert. Would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid promised a review of the changes last week, in line with other parties. But observers have noted that there is no mention of this in …

  1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    They wont. If they win the election they will do exactly the same as they have for the past 9 years - i.e. screw over everyone but their big-money mates.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      @Paul Crawford

      "They wont. If they win the election they will do exactly the same as they have for the past 9 years - i.e. screw over everyone but their big-money mates."

      Not much difference in the main parties then

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Paul Crawford

        Thats exactly the point.

        Someone mentioned that a a small % income tax rise on, say apple, or anyone of the big players, would dwarf anything from a few contractors.

        I guess the gubberment are utter scaredy-pants in the face of big business.

        They are weak and pathetic.

        Far easier to beat-up on the little man.

        The party of business - my not-as-fat-as-yours ass.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @Paul Crawford

          @AC

          Why would we want them to raise tax? Not just against big business but anyway? The gov isnt better at spending the money than the people, hell the gov gets railed for wasting it or spaffing on mates. Taxation in this country is pretty high already.

          I was agreeing with Paul Crawford that the gov will screw everyone but their mates. But mentioning that it applies to all the parties.

    2. macjules Silver badge

      Yep. When did any party/government ever undo the tax implementations of their predecessor?

      In other news CAA announces a new test for owners of drones, unicorns and owners of more than one flying porcine unit.

      1. AMBxx Silver badge

        Post 1979 - corp tax, capital gains and income tax were all reduced with the result that tax take went up.

      2. Kane Silver badge
        Coat

        "one flying porcine unit"

        Price of bacon will go up then!

        I'll see myself out, mines the one with greasy paper bag in the pocket.

  2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "Now, we are calling on all parties to [..] halt the 2020 roll-out"

    Seems a bit late, given that companies are already getting rid of their contractors.

    You guys made a pigs breakfast of it all and somebody's going to have pick up the pieces. As usual, it's the peons that will suffer.

    1. grizzlybaz

      Re: "Now, we are calling on all parties to [..] halt the 2020 roll-out"

      To be fair, the IPSE have been campaigning long and hard about this issue. The government just haven't listened because it's more fun to paint contractors as "tax dodgers".

  3. BrownishMonstr Bronze badge

    This wouldn't happen to be the same Sajid Javid who overrode Lancashire County Council's decision on Cuadrilla's planning permission application?

    1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

      Not exactly. The ministerial position he filled did that, as it had to in order to comply with the law. Any other minister would have been compelled - in the courts, if necessary - to do the same thing, because LCC's decision was totally unlawful (and IMO a pretty blatant attempt to duck responsibility for approving fracking).

      Whether you approve of fracking, or oppose it because you hate poor people getting rich, this country doesn't have any legal mechanism for blanket-denying planning permission to a process.

      1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

        are these mutually exclusive groups?

        "you approve of fracking" and "you oppose it because you hate poor people getting rich"

        Do you mean "you approve of fracking because you love poor people getting rich"? as a term of equal meaning and weight?

        Could it be "you approve of fracking because you don't care about destabilising the land and the people's houses and businesses on it" and "you oppose it because you do care about destablising etc etc" could also be a possibility?

        Or you might think that fracking will not make poor people rich, but oil companies rich?

        The way you set it up is a classic example of begging the question, that is, loading the terms so that you force the answer.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

          Re: are these mutually exclusive groups?

          It seems we have a new troll under the bridge.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You expect politicians to tell the truth on IR35 rather than saying what people want to hear during an election?

    We can't even get:

    - Boris Johnson to say how many kids he has

    - Jeremy Corbyn to provide a believable answer on when he watched the Queens speech last Christmas

    - Jo Swinson on anything about the environment

    Arguably that makes the LibDems the best option as at least they only lie about their policies...

    1. Oh Matron!

      To be honest, the world is actually burning to hell right now (both physically and metaphorically) so perhaps focusing on the environment isn't such a bad thing. If we don't do it now, then when?

    2. robidy Bronze badge

      R u Nigel or Nicola ha ha

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You might want to update this article as Labour claim they'll scrap IR35 which is quite a different position to the Tory's and LibDems.

    https://www.contractoruk.com/news/0014347labour_surprise_pledge_scrap_ir35_reform_april_2020.html

    1. Excellentsword (Written by Reg staff)

      I'll refer you to this article: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/28/political_parties_fall_over_themselves_to_win_tech_contractors_vote_by_pledging_to_review_ir35/

    2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

      A shadow minister(?) said that. However, he then backtracked later and said they were just going to review it, not commit to scrapping it.

      IMHO we've heard all this before. None of them are going to cancel, delay or amend the reforms. Contractors are easy targets, both in terms of public opinion and lack of resources to lobby or fight. We'll be screwed over, any market making significant use of contractors will face massive disruption, but HMRC will count it as a success even when tax receipts drop significantly. Everyone involved will lose out, but the government will fudge the figures to try to prove they haven't.

      1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

        To be fair, Corbynism renders IR35 completely irrelevant. There will be no contractors, because that's 'tax avoidance', so there will be no need to tax them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >To be fair, Corbynism renders IR35 completely irrelevant. There will be no contractors, because that's 'tax avoidance', so there will be no need to tax them.

          See also Tory Brexit, when our service industries go into direct competition with India to sell services outside the UK.

        2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

          "There will be no contractors, because that's 'tax avoidance'"

          How is that any different to current Tory policy, which is pushing the same idea that contracting is 'tax avoidance'? Their policies will see exactly the same result you claim of "Corbynism".

          1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

            It is avoidance. The problem is that "avoidance" is being conflated with "evasion", where the former is not paying taxes you don't owe, while the latter is not paying taxes you do owe.

            I pay the tax I owe. I avoid paying capital gains, for instance, by not being an investment bank or trading stocks and shares. I avoid paying inheritance tax by not inheriting anything from my still living parents. I avoid paying the car tax for three cars by having just one car.

            This is what keeps annoying me about this whole thing: confusion of terms. Contractors only pay the tax that they legally owe, and for some reason this has become a bad thing.

            1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

              I think the difference comes down to impressions.

              A person would not consider someone a tax avoider for not paying car tax on a car they don't own, but they might consider it avoidance not paying any tax because you have a Plugin Hybrid, even though you never plug it in and there are no emissions benefits when running it on petrol alone.

              Tax avoidance is usually used to mean someone who doesn't pay tax which they don't owe but people think they should owe. This is why I put 'tax avoidance' in quotes, because I don't consider it tax avoidance, I consider it paying the correct amount of tax.

              It's also why the rules and reforms here bother me. It's nothing to do with paying more tax. It's the fact that, as there are a set of rules specifically targeting contractors, the govt and those who support the rules believe we are avoiding paying tax which we should owe, even though we don't owe it. It says that they believe we are doing something unethical, when I pride myself on being a good and ethical person.

              I would be perfectly happy if the govt decided to increase CT and/or the dividend tax. I would continue to pay what I owe. I will never be happy, though, with rules aimed specifically at me and my compatriots which attempt to class us as "tax dodgers", and even less so with rules which look like they could completely destroy the contractor industry.

              1. Graham Dawson Silver badge
                Pint

                Fair point. I think I might steal that example in future.

              2. The Onymous Coward

                I don't understand why they think IR35 is a good way of making contractors pay more tax. It's complicated, vague and full of loopholes. They should have just created a rule along the lines of "companies with 5 or fewer shareholders may only pay out 25% of profit as dividend" or somesuch. Same effect, no getting around it, no nonsense about "personal service companies" and "deemed payments".

                1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

                  Yep. Also in the running:

                  - increase the dividend tax

                  - replace shareholders with employees in your suggestion

                  - bring in a rule saying that any dividend paid to a director or employee must be run through PAYE as if salary (with a credit for corporation tax already paid)

                  All of these are simpler and fairer than IR35, while having the same or very similar effect on tax revenues.

                2. Cederic Silver badge

                  Hmm. You left a loophole or two there.

                  E.g., year 3: My company, having paid 25% of its profits from years 1 and 2 as dividends, has a sizeable cash balance.

                  Another company, which just happens to be entirely owned by me, buys my company for its assets. It can afford to do this because it's borrowed enough money to cover the purchase price from me.

                  I now have 75% of my company's profits returned to me as a cash sale of shares, on which I pay a mere 28% CGT (and even that only after deductions) and, better yet, I now work for the other company which pays me 25% of its profits in dividends, but also pays me a handsome tax free loan repayment for a couple of years.

                  Don't worry, if you close that loophole I can find another. And another. And ano.. well, we'll get back to where we are now. How do you think we got here?

                3. macjules Silver badge
                  Thumb Down

                  Unfortunately it is not really about the 'contractors' in an IT sense. IR35 was introduced into law in 2000 by Gordon Brown to counter 'tax avoidance' by the use of so-called "personal service companies", specifically highly paid BBC presenters who were advised by the BBC to use PSC. It is alleged that this was to help the BBC avoid paying the Employer NIC contribution on their earnings.

                  By the way, there is still no definition in HMRC of what a PSC actually is - one of the many problems of this incredibly badly thought out 'tax and grab' legislation.

          2. TheMeerkat

            With Corbyn even if you switch to be a permanent employee you would be taxed to death. The so-called “few” that Corbyn wants to tax is you.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "taxed to death" - tax never killed anyone. Whereas the squeeze on government funding caused by us collectively as a society not paying enough tax is killing quite a lot of people. I'm pretty well off, I pay a lot of tax, and I don't begrudge any of it. I'd be happy to see taxes rise if it meant a better NHS, better schools, fewer homeless, more social housing. My life is improved more by seeing fewer beggars on the street than it would be by having a bigger car. Get over yourself.

              1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

                I agree with the sentiments of your comment, however:

                "tax never killed anyone"

                The Loan Charge is a tax and has caused 7 suicides so far.

                While I believe the loan schemes were highly unethical, and I advised my father to avoid them like the plague*, they were "sold" by experienced tax advisors and legal experts on the basis that they were legal. While strictly, the way the regs are worded, the loan charge does not count as retrospective taxation, the effect is to raise extra tax on cases which should be settled. This is at least as unethical as the schemes themselves.

                The stupid thing is that there were already ways to deal with this in the tax code, by means of investigations and anti-avoidance rules. The loan charge is just a way for HMRC to avoid doing any work, avoid scrutiny for their failures in investigating this in the past, and to open up years which should have been closed already.

                * I wasn't contracting at the time but he was and nearly joined such a scheme. He's very glad he listened to me now...

          3. katrinab Silver badge

            Labour policy is to use employment law to ban bogus self employment, which means you won’t be a contractor, and you will have full employment rights as well as a full tax bill.

  6. DavCrav Silver badge

    "Would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid"

    He is currently Chancellor. Although MPs give up their seats when Parliament is dissolved, Ministers continue in their jobs.

  7. tiggity Silver badge

    Porkies

    Unless you are one of their rich pay masters, the old mantra of Never trust a Tory remains true for the general public.

    And when you look at all the Tory Old Etonians e.g. Johnson, Mogg etc, the other mantra of never trust a toff remains true

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
        IT Angle

        Re: Porkies

        At least Corbyn only hates 1 group

        The tories seem to hate everyone (except those who give them money... alledgedly)

        Anyway..... plenty of other places for a political bunfight ....

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

          1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Porkies

            The idea that someone is stealing your share is antisemitism, however you dress it up.

            There's so much I could say about that but I'll settle on asking who convinced you to believe in such wank?

          2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

            Re: Porkies

            "The idea that someone is stealing your share is antisemitism"

            Huh? Maybe you could explain what you mean, because I see nothing in that which refers to Jews.

            The idea that Jews were "stealing your share" would be Antisemitism, but just the idea that someone is...?

            1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

              Re: Porkies

              The someone is always the Jews. Google 'socialism of fools' for more info.

              1. james_smith Silver badge

                Re: Porkies

                You clearly have no idea what the "Socialism of Fools" referred to.

              2. phuzz Silver badge

                Re: Porkies

                "The someone is always the Jews."

                Now that actually is anti-Semitic Dave.

                It's also wrong, mostly the people getting more than their fair share are tories.

              3. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

                Re: Porkies

                The someone is always the Jews

                As others have said, that seems like antisemitism in itself.

                I have seen nothing which leads me to believe that JC or the Labour party thinks the Jews are stealing anyone's share. I see lots saying they believe the rich and large, multi-national companies are "stealing their share" (or, to be more accurate, not paying their "fair share").

                I disagree with many things Labour are proposing and find the party distasteful, but no more so than the Tories. There probably is racism and bigotry within the Labour party, but there is in the Tory party, too (and BJ has shown more of it, outright and on the record, than JC has)

          3. CliveS
            WTF?

            Re: Porkies

            "The idea that someone is stealing your share is antisemitism"

            That is complete and utter bollocks. Just that.

          4. Third Electric

            Re: Porkies

            "The idea that someone is stealing your share is antisemitism, however you dress it up."

            So Marxism, the ideology that the exploitation of workers profits a minority capitalist class which basically says that 'someone is stealing your share', is anti-Semitic despite being conceived by a German Jew?

            Are you available for childrens parties and bar mitzvahs?

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Porkies

            Boris is one of the most openly racist pigs currently holding office.

      2. ridley

        Re: Porkies

        Maybe I am being thick buy what is anti Semitic about that comment?

        1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

          Re: Porkies

          What other conspiracy theory claims the government is controlled by 'their rich paymasters' and rips off the people?

          It's just straight up Nazi bullshit.

          1. Godwhacker

            Re: Porkies

            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-donors-house-lords-peers-theresa-may-boris-johnson-labour-a9231061.html

            and

            https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50508009

            There's no mention of these groups being overwhelmingly Jewish, because they aren't. I agree that the "shadowy paymaster" thing is a common anti-semitic trope, but I don't think that's what's happening here.

          2. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

            Re: Porkies

            Unless they are saying those "paymasters" are Jewish (which I have seen no suggestion of), it's not antisemitic.

            1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

              1. phuzz Silver badge

                Re: Porkies

                Six million Jews and something like eleven million+ other people (Poles, Roma, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, disabled people, etc.) yes.

                And that's just the people who were herded into camps and killed in cold blood.

                1. phuzz Silver badge

                  Re: Porkies

                  To put that in perspective, the current UK population is about 66 million, so that's the equivalent of about a quarter of Britain's population today. One in four.

      3. batfink Silver badge

        Re: Porkies

        Really? Which of these comments is antisemitic?

        Is it "Never trust a Tory"? Are you saying all Tories are Jewish?

        Or is it "Never Trust a Toff"? Are you saying all toffs are Jewish? Or all Jews are toffs? That sounds as if you're being antisemitic yourself.

        Or is it simply that you normally accuse anyone with different opinions to you of antisemitism?

        It's this kind of bullshit that makes fighting REAL antisemitism difficult, when we have people just shouting "antisemitism" when they mean "I don't like/agree with you". It devalues the whole thing.

        Get a fucking grip.

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

          1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        2. squirrel_nutkin

          Re: Porkies

          Things that are true:

          * Labour is actually the party that introduced IR35.

          * The maths don't work for the Tories to bin it.

          * Neither is Labour going to bin it

          * Labour does have an antisemitism problem.

          Reasons why Reg covered the story:

          * IR35 is a hot topic among contractors planning for next year. They want to game out whether it's going to happen. A lot of people are just irritated someone's going to be completely in control of their time.

          I think that Dave Dave has got what he came for.

    2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  8. Dave314159ggggdffsdds

    There's an elephant you're ignoring

    Fuss about which party may or may not have lied more in the regular run of the mill way is really just a way to distract attention from the fact that the Labour party is fundamentally antisemitic. The Jewish community has begged the rest of the country not to vote Labour, because a vote for Labour is a vote for antisemitism.

    This is not a normal election, and in future decades we will look back and see who recognised the monster and stood up to it. Those who didn't are going to find it very hard to claim they are not racist.

    Boris is awful, but he's going to win because Corbyn is a lifelong antisemite with decades of payments from racists in his bank accounts.

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      The Jewish community has begged the rest of the country not to vote Labour

      Some in the Jewish community have begged for that.

      because a vote for Labour is a vote for antisemitism.

      Not everyone in the Jewish community believes that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

        "Not everyone in the Jewish community believes that."

        But is that from the actual UK Jewish community or the made up letter "Jewish representatives" sent to The Canary and The Sqwawkbox?

        http://david-collier.com/letter-orthodox-rabbi/

        For the larger question of anti-semitism, the wording is key. The majority of the Labour party are not anti-Semitic. Some members of the Labour party are anti-Semitic based on what they have said. The Labour party has failed to adequately investigate many of the reported offences, some of those found guilty have been kicked out and subsequently re-admitted and others have had cases dropped with no punishment or explanation for why the cases were dropped.

        Actions speak louder than words.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      You are a Troll and I claim my £5

    3. Phlebas

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      You are Botty McBotface and ICMFP.

    4. CliveS
      Flame

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      There is so much wrong with that comment that it's hard to know where to begin. Simpler to identify the only reasonable, honest and factual elements. i.e.

      "This is not a normal election"

      and

      "Boris is awful"

      The rest is just unsubstantiated and refutable bollocks.

    5. DJV Silver badge

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      You are Jacob Ree-Smogg and I claim my 50p.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

        Unfortunately JR-M doesn't believe in decimalisation*, so instead you just get a thrupney bit

        * (Although it happened when he was three. Did you know that he's actually younger then Kylie Minogue? Bare that in mind next time he's doing his 'more Edwardian than thou' routine.)

        1. Ordinary Donkey

          Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

          Getting any money at all out of JRM?

          We should be so lucky.

        2. Rich 11 Silver badge

          Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

          younger then Kylie Minogue? Bare that

          Is that an example of a Freudian nipple slip?

          1. batfink Silver badge

            Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

            I don't wish to bare anything about JR-M in my mind, thank you very much. I can't afford the therapy.

            Kylie, on the other hand...

          2. Aussie Doc
            Paris Hilton

            Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

            I always thought a Freudian slip was something worn under a see-through blouse.

            She probably has one ---->

    6. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      If you look at a large group of people you will find a diversity of opinions many of which you disagree with. Some will be anti-: semitic, muslim, gypsy/roma, black/brown/yellow/white/... gay, men/women, ...

      Just because the large group are all members of XXX does not mean that XXX is institutionally anti-YYY. But what does seem to happen is that if group YYY is well organised they can make sufficient waves in the media for some to believe that XXX is anti-YYYist.

      So: be slow to believe what you read, try to learn what is really happening.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

        And if group XXX is accused of anti-semitism and cases are passed to said parties complaints team, who investigate and then either eject the member only for them to reappear a few months later saying much the same thing (Chris Williamson etc) or the investigation drags on for more than a year with no action being taken.

        While I have no doubt that racism exists in any large political party, how the party handles those people when clear cases emerge of unacceptable behaviour is how the party ends up being judged.

        In Labours case, I believe the issue is rooted in painting one side as good and the other side as bad - once you do that, any abuse, however vile, of the bad side is tolerated because you are on the good side. What began as Palestine (good) vs Israel (bad) has crossed from positive action and intellectual debate to something else.

    7. batfink Silver badge

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      No. The "Jewish Community" has not done that. The current Chief Rabbi has done that. He does not speak for "the Jewish community" - he only claims to. He speaks for part of it. There are a lot of other parts of the "Jewish Community" with quite different ideas. Perhaps you should get out from under your rock and meet a few.

      Rabbi Mirvis has shown from the outset that he's an open supporter of the Tories, and is willing to wade into election discussions on their behalf. His predecessor, Rabbi Sachs, had quite different ideas.

      1. short a sandwich

        Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

        The good Rabbi also uttered not one peep when the last Prime Minister Mrs T May unveiled the statue to commemorate the arch anti-semite Lady Astor. Who 'hoped that nice Mr Hitler would solve the world Jewish problem'.

    8. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: There's an elephant you're ignoring

      You realise the Tories lovingly put up a statue of famed Anti Semite Nancy Astor recently (plenty of pics online of Johnson there with a big grin)

      Yes, she was "a long time ago" / past is a different country etc. - but when statue celebrated, none of the Tories made any reference to her nasty beliefs, made comments about her obviously being of her time and holding views that are unacceptable today, instead just a big celebration with no wider pictutre comments

  9. Franco Silver badge

    I can already announce the result of the reviews. Same as every other time IPSE, Contractor Calculator et al have called out HMRC on IR35. We've reviewed it, we're doing it right and the changes will proceed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Doesn't matter which party or parties are in power, because HMRC are convinced they are right and will continue to say that to the Government.

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      @Franco

      Actually, IR35 is the manifestation of an HMG Treasury policy. HMRC are just there to try to implement it.

      Of course, when handed an poorly thought out tax change and told to make it work, the solution that they've come up with has so many barely papered over cracks which have more paper over them to make it seem coherent that to the people it affects, it just looks hopeless and unjust.

      This latest change just alters who HMRC can threaten with FUD. Clients have more to lose, so are less likely to challenge the policy.

      But, the Government makes the laws, so we are pretty helpless to push back.

  10. Old Cynic

    HMRC say they can add £xB to the coffers by fixing tax 'avoidance', no minister is going so say no to that.

    Big companies stop engaging contractors, bring in more people from offshore to fill the gap.

    Some time later, none of the promised income appears, more local people are out of work and money goes to offshore companies.

    Obviously it will be claimed to be a massive success.

  11. DontFeedTheTrolls Silver badge
    Boffin

    "an uncosted pledge that would leave a multibillion-pound hole in accounts should the party remain in power after the UK general election"

    Or perhaps they don't want to publish the true situation that the net tax take to HMRC is almost identical before and after IR35. What they gain in NI from "disguised employees" they lose in VAT and Corporation Tax. The figures published attempting to justify IR35 only show one side, they don't take account of loss of any other source of tax.

    1. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

      Stop tying to derail the arguments with facts please. No-one likes that.

      But you are right. I did a comparison on what I've paid in total taxes over the last couple of years against what I used to pay when I was at an umbrella company, and the difference if I have to go back to an umbrella or permie will be a net loss to HMRC of about £20k per year.

  12. DJV Silver badge

    "We've mailed the Conservative Party press office and will update this story if we hear anything"

    Shirley, you mean the "Conservative Party lies and misinformation office"?

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Report from my unimPRESSed department

      Shirley, you mean the "Conservative Party lies and misinformation office"?

      The Election Flying from the Conservatives that came through my letterbox read like the 'Arnie does it best' clippings Rimmer had on his wall in Red Dwarf.

      i.e, lots of headlines that don't mean what they're being sold to mean.

      And this plopped through the letterbox a week after the BBC complaint.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Report from my unimPRESSed department

        "The Election Flying from the Conservatives that came through my letterbox read like the 'Arnie does it best' clippings Rimmer had on his wall in Red Dwarf"

        Yes I've been lucky enough to have been leafleted by the three main parties - they all manage to seem equally awful but in completely different ways.

        They foolishly appear to think that the bollocks they print in these things will affect my vote - I'm afraid that will be decided by whose leaflet is gentler on the derrière when I wipe my arse with them...

  13. batfink Silver badge

    It's too late for dithering

    My own organisation is already spending a lot of time and money trying to sort out the IR35 question for our many, many contractors. We've only got until April 4 to have everything in place for the new regime. This includes making people offers to become perm, renegotiating contracts, negotiating with Agencies, and recruiting replacements for those we might lose as part of the above.

    We can't afford to wait now for any "reviews". If whoever wins the election declares a hold on the implementation for a defined length of time, that will be fine, and we'll put this on hold. However, if they just announce a "review", then we are just going to continue the process, and a lot of the contractors are going to be out of the door.

  14. Rich 11 Silver badge

    an uncosted pledge that would leave a multibillion-pound hole in accounts should the party remain in power

    Just like Brexit, then.

  15. Bob Ajob

    Contractors

    "...already seeing banks and other major companies panic-scrapping their contractors"

    Having seen this first hand (I'm back-filling for a contractor who was benched purely for IR35 reason) the knock-on effects are extremely concerning, as there simply wasn't enough time to determine which contractors might not come back without costing businesses a LOT more to balance their books. Crazy move that will cost more in the long run.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anyone promising an IR35 Tooth Fairy

    Is lying through [well... you know where the sun don't shine].

    They'll do what HMRC tell them to do. Politicians of different flavours/parties come and go but the Civil Service goes on forever.

    HMRC will lie and tell whichever MP is in the Chancellors Hot Seat and promise loads of filthy lucre for going after contractors with IR35.

    Meanwhile, the HMRC top honchos will be feathering their platinum plated pensions and heading off to Little Britain (Dordogne on Sea)

    Cyncial?

    You betcha.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Hood

    Why would anyone believe a word from this guy?

    Everyone has seen him on Thunderbirds with his evil lies about the Tracey family. And also on Sky News lying about UK homelessness figures going down under the Tories.

    Are UK voters that stupid?

  18. TheMeerkat

    Contractors earning good money and worried about paying too much tax are coming in defence of Corbyn - how stupid some people can get?

    1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

      "Contractors earning good money and worried about paying too much tax"

      I'll start by pointing out that I'm no fan of Corbyn or Labour, this is no defence of them or their policies.

      However, there is a big difference between "paying too much tax" and "paying more tax".

      As I've stated elsewhere, my greatest objection to IR35 is that it penalises contractors, and only contractors. A director/owner of a private Ltd is entitled to set his own salary and to declare whatever proportion of the companies profits he wishes as dividends. Being declared inside IR35 is basically saying "Yeah, but you're not a director/owner of an Ltd, you're just saying that to avoid paying tax". It would be calling me a liar (and couldn't be further from the truth in most cases I know of).

      I would be happy with an increase to CT and/or dividends tax, limits to the amount of profit which can be declared as dividends, or even rules which force dividends paid to employees/directors to be run through PAYE as salary, as long as they applied across the board and did not call me a liar or a tax dodger.

      On top of this, the way many clients are handling this will force all contractors to pay too much tax (i.e. more tax than they should owe) by banning Ltd contractors or declaring them all "inside" even when they are clearly outside.

      So, no, I don't want to pay "too much tax" (more tax than I owe based on my circumstances), but I'm fine paying more tax.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So how will this increase HMRC's tax take?

    I am a Contractor - and I did have a 3 year contract extension starting in January which was worth £750,000.

    Now that Contract has been binned - due to the client's fears over IR35. They are binning ALL UK Contractors as a matter of policy.

    So HMRC will get zero tax - and the Economy will not get the benefit of my spending whatever would have been left over from that £750,000 after tax.

    So how exactly is this a benefit?

    Plus the Company in question (A large Multi-National) will not be able to replace me* - as I have a fairly unusual skill set. So they will suffer too.

    * They have been looking for the past 18 months for someone to back me up (or replace me) - but have not found a single candidate.

    Ho Hummm. Early retirement it is then.

    1. Andre 3
      Pint

      Re: So how will this increase HMRC's tax take?

      What exactly do you do? I would like to re-train in that please.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020