>> A statutory inquiry into the mass miscarriage of justice launched in 2021 and is ongoing.

These MFs just sit there polishing their arses. It is time to get rid of the existing statutory inquiry, and bring in something which is led by the plaintiffs. The judiciary are not very trustworthy.

IR35 was introduced to reduce off-payroll workers who avoid paying regular employment taxes

That claim has it backwards. IR35 did not reduce avoidance; it concentrated it. By forcing work away from independents and small consultancies, it funnelled contracts toward large firms with the scale, legal cover and accounting machinery to minimise tax exposure far more aggressively than any lone contractor ever could.

The same firms also gained easier access to overseas labour, hired below UK market rates under existing visa schemes, further undercutting domestic specialists. That was not an unintended side effect but a structural outcome of how the rules were designed and enforced.

In practice, IR35 reduced competition, created brain drain, weakened delivery quality, increased costs to the public and private sector, and expanded the very behaviours it claimed to prevent, just relocated behind corporate logos and compliance theatre.

I shall add:

An “off-payroll worker” is not a low-tax worker.

A contractor charges more than an employee because they are a business. That higher rate means the total tax paid is always higher than for an equivalent PAYE employee, even without payroll.

A consultancy employee on £60-70k pa is typically billed at £1k-2k a day. The spread is captured as corporate margin and usually shifted offshore in ways an individual contractor cannot.

An “off-payroll worker” is not a low-tax worker.

In fact there isn't such a thing as an off-payroll worker in this context. It's simply that the worker is shifter from the client's payroll to the contracting company's payroll. It's just one of those pejorative terms HMRC like to use to demonise those who opt to exercise their right to run their own business.

The term might be applied to a sole trader but that's a completely different status.

As an off-payroll worker:

* You don't get paid holidays or bank holidays;

* You don't get sick pay (or private health benefits);

* You can be terminated usually at 1 weeks notice without any reason being given;

* You won't get access to any employer fringe benefits e.g. shop discount schemes;

* You aren't eligible for company car schemes;

* You have to make your own pension arrangements and contributions all come out of your pay.

HMRC IR35 tests:

* Control: Evaluates the degree of control the client has over the contractor. Outside IR35, the contractor should decide how, when, and where to work, rather than being managed like an employee;.

* Substitution (Right of Personal Service): A key indicator is whether the contractor can send a substitute to perform the work. A genuine business has the right to send a substitute, whereas an employee is required to perform work personally, as explained by People Group Services.

* Mutuality of Obligation (MOO): This checks if the client is obligated to offer work and if the contractor is obliged to accept it. Outside IR35, there should be no obligation for further work once the contract ends.

In additon:

* Financial Risk: Does the contractor bear financial risk, such as paying for their own insurance, training, and fixing mistakes at their own expense?

* Part and Parcel: Is the contractor integrated into the client's organization (e.g., having a company email, appearing on the org chart, or receiving benefits)?

* Equipment: Does the contractor use their own equipment (laptops, software) rather than the client's?

One of the other dodgy areas is working via an "umbrella company" as below:

"An umbrella company acts as an employer for temporary or contract workers, serving as an intermediary between the worker, a recruitment agency, and an end client, handling payroll, taxes (PAYE), and National Insurance, providing legal employment status, benefits, and continuous work history, while the worker performs assignments for various clients. They invoice the agency, get paid, then pay the worker through PAYE, deducting contributions, simplifying administration for the contractor."

Thus working for an umbrella company you get none of the benefits but screwed over for PAYE and you still have to arrange your own sickness insurance, pension payments etc.

I frequently get offered roles under IR35 or via an umbrella company, all of which I refuse, but I know a goodly number of people who are working in IR35 roles who are not operating within the rules (and I don't blame them). One I know sets up a new company every 12 months or so so as to stay under the HMRC radar.

I'm thankful to be operating (legally) outside IR35.

One of the previous posts was correct, it's basically screwed over the majority of small companies in favour of large consultancies employing people under IR35.

A freelancer working for their own company should be paid a salary which covers holidays, time off sick etc. and may well have the company pay for private medical cover. The company might provide a company car (but very likely heavily taxed as a benefit in kind) or pay the employee mileage for using their own car subject to HMRC limits. The company cannot bill for periods during which it is not providing a service. It should manage its finances to allow for paying salary during out of contract periods from the fees billed in the course of contracts.

You need to distinguish between the freelancing company and the freelancer. Failing to do this plays right into HMRC's hands as propaganda against those who wish exercise their right to run their own business company as does using language which confuses the client with an employer as in "employer's fringe benefits".

Substitution (Right of Personal Service): A key indicator is whether the contractor can send a substitute to perform the work. A genuine business has the right to send a substitute ...

That is not a valid test. It may be for common skills/knowledge, but for specialist skills/knowledge the client may be contracting the contractor for the specific skills/knowledge that one person has. And as I think a lot of us realise, a big section of the contracting market is for those specialist skills/knowledge that a business might need for a short time but cannot justify employing full time. I recently worked on a project with someone who did have an almost unique combination of skills - being able to design, implement, and test a particular type of system. People who can design - plenty. People who can build a design done by someone else - plenty. People who can diagnose problems/test & verify the system when it's built - plenty. But people who could do the whole lot from start to finish - very few, and that's specifically the skillset he was contracted in for. To suggest that because his company couldn't substitute someone else that it was therefore disguised employment is just laughable (or would be if it weren't the sort of fakery HMRC uses to screw people.

One of the previous posts was correct, it's basically screwed over the majority of small companies in favour of large consultancies employing people under IR35

+1 to that.

And where is Fujitsu in this?

How about the Government claws back money from Fujitsu & better, stops giving then new contracts.

Given what has gone on it really cannot be that difficult to reduce the payments on existing contracts to recoup the money they should be paying up.

Have you ever had a wine and steak dinner and tried to do something important afterwards?

Have you ever had a wine, steak, bucket of brandy and rustling brown envelope dinner and tried to do something morally correct afterwards?

Fixed that for you

Your persistent "wine and steak" thing - are you nursing a grievance at having been left out of something?

Well something has to explain HMG's persistent sponsorship of digital ineptitude? It's been going on for so long, with such bad and public outcomes that its no longer credible to blame stupidity.

Remind me again why the taxpayer should be subsidising the compensation, and not the people responsible?

I agree mostly - and have given you an upvote.

But, (at least for the Horizon scandal) this is a somewhat unusual situation where I personally think it's correct to provide some support - as long as we claw it back from the guilty parties when that's all been settled.

For part fo the period this applies to, the PO was publicly owned. If you look as the history, what is now Post Office Counters started off as just part of the Post Office - and IIRC has been through a few changes of ownership structure over the years. As the article points out, the liabilities are very large relative to it's turnover - so if you force it to cover all the costs then there's a risk of killing it completely, which given the disquiet at even selling it in the first place caused, wouldn't go down too well.

Then we have the unusual legal situation where the PO could bring it's own prosecutions. Arguably, allowing that to continue - even when it was getting to be fairly obvious that it was being abused - is again a failing of the government (i.e. the government was culpable in the actions leading up to the need for compensation. The DPP (department for public prosecutions) was specifically created to stop the situation where the police were bringing "questionable" prosecutions without the need to show any independent body some evidence. I can't help thinking that had the PO been required to put everything past the DPP, the issue would have been spotted a lot sooner than it was.

Now the "claw it back from the guilty parties" bit. There is a criminal investigation going on, and it takes time to gather evidence that will stand up in court. We all "know" who the guilty parties are, but us "know"ing, and the DPP being able to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" in a court are two different things. This is going to take years - and then there will probably be appeals, and so on. Only after all that will we know (in a legally defensible way) who the guilty parties are, and hopefully will be able to nail them for the cost of this sort of subsidy.