|
| |
| |
Initial discussions
between 3 sixty and the Inland Revenue
- There will not be a consultative document issued on IR35, instead
the Inland Revenue have asked interested parties to comment on the IR35 Budget Release.
Parties will then be invited by the Inland Revenue to participate in discussion groups to
raise any relevant issues
- In autumn the Inland Revenue will publish their approach to IR35
- IR35 will become law from spring 2000 and will be published in the
Finance Act 2000
- Workers have been quick to react to any proposed changes as they are
most effected
- The Inland Revenue state that the only reaction, so far, from
Employers has been positive towards this legislation as they would rather contract staff
return to permanent employment
- The Limited Company will not be abolished
- Transactions of the Limited Company rather than the entity of the
Limited Company are under scrutiny
- Not all contracts will be caught under the legislation
- Two rules will be used, primarily the Agency Test and to a lesser
degree Schedule D/E rules
- The End User / Agency, by using these rules must determine whether
the contractor should be PAYE or Limited
- End user/agency must elect to take responsibility for compliance.
Failure to be compliant will result in one or other party being responsible for any Tax
liabilities
- The Revenue would be looking through the Limited Company to examine
if the contract is closely akin to direct employment
- There should be no fiscal advantage to using Limited Companies
- Example A: Contractor working on Millennium Bug
Project, End User wants Health Check carried out on their system. End user pays a certain
price for a certain service
Example B: New system - End User requires 12 months support on a
day-to-day basis to roll-out a new system. The End User is telling them what to do and
therefore the support person is effectively an additional member of staff
- If the contractor is deemed to be akin to direct employment the End
User / Agency will make NICs and Tax deductions at source and the net amount paid to the
contractor or the Contractor Company. If paid to the Contractor Company the income can be
paid directly onto the contractor without further deductions
- The Inland Revenue are not accepting any invitations to seminars and
have suggested group approaches
- No one body has the exclusive voice for IT, however, the BCS have a
history with Mr Nelthorne at the Inland Revenue
- The Industry needs to respond quickly
"we are going to put the proposals in front of the Ministers within 3 weeks" (IR
13/04/99)
- The Inland Revenue do not want to start with a blank sheet of paper
. The first paper will be pretty radical
but it will be something to work off
- The Inland Revenue are keen to get constructive comment and
suggestion as to the ways in which the legislation should be drafted and need as much
detail as possible.
Discussions between 3 sixty and other relevant parties
- The Inland Revenue last year implemented 50,000 workstations. This
was done using EDS. EDS are a major user of IT contract staff. If they had all been PAYE
the cost to the Inland Revenue and the public purse would have been significantly higher
- When the various government departments were asked to comment on the
proposed legislation the DTI did not have sufficient ground to disagree with a measure
designed to raise an additional £475M. They were not aware that contractors were able to
replace the benefits they would normally be given when normally employed by instigating
alternatives such as Income Protection and Retirement provision. Furthermore, their
perception is that the majority of contractors remained in the same contract in excess of
two years and did not move from one short-term contract to another.
- The BCS (British Computer Society) The CBI (Confederation of British
Industry), FSB (The Federation of Small Businesses), specialist accountancy firms have all
been in contact with Mr Nelthorne
- The ICC has put forward a 6-point compromise plan as a starting
point for negotiation.
- The DTI are not aware of the ways that contractors replace benefits
such as Pensions and Sick Pay, to their benefit and the reduction of burden on the State.
It is important to note, it is the definition of
employment applied to this legislation that will determine the effect the legislation has
on the industry. Be aware, that it is not only the IT industry that will be effected.
Other industries rely heavily on a similar use of freelance workers such as accountants,
architects, engineers, petro-chemical and finance etc. These other sectors currently do
not have representative voices.
What will be the effects?
- Increase in costs to end users
- Increased risk to end users/agencies
- Increase administration and compliance costs to agencies
- Reduced flexibility for UK industry
- Potential for contractors moving overseas to more favourable tax
environments
- Increased cost to government for administration and compliance
(indicated to be currently £1.3Billion)
- Mass confusion as to exact statuses to be applied
It is therefore down to the service industry to lobby its
case to the revenue. It would be naive to think that this legislation could be prevented
altogether, but it is representations that are made now that will influence the exact
drafting of the legislation.
Where do we go from here?
 | Lobby for a full consultation stage in accordance with Inland
Revenue Code of Practice
|
 | Collate full report for the Revenue and Members of Parliament
|
 | Present the evidence to the relevant parties in a constructive
manner
|
 | Elicit support of Members of Parliament and Key Government
Departments
|
 | Lobby to achieve optimum result |
|
|
|