Press release: Freelancers urged to sign ePetition in protest at "income shift-ing" tax

For immediate release: 2 January 2007

Freelancers throughout the UK are being urged by the Professional
Contractors Group (PCG) to sign a petition against the proposed new tax
on "income shifting" on the Number 10 website.

PCG Chairman David Ramsden, who started the petition, commented: "All
freelancers and small business owners should sign this petition: the
proposals are not fair, not workable, and not justified by any of the
arguments made in the Treasury's consultation paper."

The petition is available at:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IncomeShifting1/.

For further information: http://www.pcg.org.uk

---CONTACT---

John Kell  +44 (0)845 125 9899 or +44 (0)791 7696151
Email:  john.kell@pcg.org.uk

Jo Phillips:  +44 (0)7710 245 039 or +44 (0)20 7089 3686
Email:  jo@tenalpslive.com

Professional Contractors Group Limited
Heathrow Boulevard, 280 Bath Rd
West Drayton, UB7 0DQ

Telephone:  +44 (0)845 125 9899
Fax:  +44 (0)845 644 4105

Kelvin Hales wrote:

> Freelancers throughout the UK are being urged by the Professional
> Contractors Group (PCG) to sign a petition against the proposed new tax
> on "income shifting" on the Number 10 website.

> PCG Chairman David Ramsden, who started the petition, commented: "All
> freelancers and small business owners should sign this petition: the
> proposals are not fair, not workable, and not justified by any of the
> arguments made in the Treasury's consultation paper."

Neither was IR35. But :

1. That didn't stop them.
2. They didn't lose the key court case (the Judicial Review etc) .


As a result, I suspect that :

- if a "regulatory impact assessment" is also done (as allegedly fo
   IR35) , rather than being mostly IT contractors and a
   nominal percentages of "others" , IT contractors (Arctic Systems etc)
   now become the "others" and the mostlys may well be some pretty powerful
   fish indeed (well-known, rich etc) quite disposed to fight in court.

- the amount of revenue extracted from this legislation will, like IR35
   before it, be so nominal as to be very low ROI for IR investigations etc.


Better for True Labour IMHO just to admit they are waging "class warfare"
against (seemingly) electorally / publicity expendible targets in order to
scrap the barrel for funding lies that cannot be met. As opposed to the
dangerous quarry who can bite very deep if you chase them for the tax they
probably should be paying (private equity firms, multi-nationals whose
registered office arrangements lessen CT burdens etc) .


Regards,
Steven Perryman