+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 77
  1. #1

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default IR35 Working Practices Review and Software Code Reviews

    I've just been through an IR35 Working Practices Review with QDos but this has found the practices within IR35 due to supervision because I've answered Yes to:

    Does anyone have the right to rigorously scrutinise the contractor's work?

    I'm a software developer, working on a project with other developers. For each piece of functionality developed, a Pull Request is made on GitHub, and the code will be reviewed by other members of the project team before being merged.

    A code review allows anyone in the project team the right to scrutinize the work, however this is more a collaborative process that the whole team gains from, rather than a supervisory role where one person will reject work until they think its good enough.

    Code reviews on software development projects are extremely common, there must be some contractors on here working outside of IR35 that participate in code reviews?

  2. #2

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    876
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    68

    Default

    Its all open to debate but I don't agree that is being supervised. Applying software development best practices isn't being supervised. Applying agile practices isn't being supervised. That is the view point I have been given by "professionals". Other opinions may differ.

    Did you just answer yes or provide a full explanation.

  3. #3

    Fingers like lightning

    VillageContractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    505
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Given)
    180
    Likes (Received)
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    Its all open to debate but I don't agree that is being supervised. Applying software development best practices isn't being supervised. Applying agile practices isn't being supervised. That is the view point I have been given by "professionals". Other opinions may differ.

    Did you just answer yes or provide a full explanation.
    I agree with this, ensuring quality standards isn't scrutinizing

  4. #4

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    876
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VillageContractor View Post
    I agree with this, ensuring quality standards isn't scrutinizing
    Its like checking someone built a wall for you to the spec you provided. Sitting on it to make sure it doesn't fall over. Did they use the materials you asked them to use ? or did they build you a wood fence when you asked them to build a brick wall?

    If they are telling you how to build it, or rebuild it, rather than pointing out the issues they have found, then you are probably IR35 caught....

    Its all shades of grey... and I wouldn't think I know more than QDOS so who knows...
    Last edited by dx4100; 24th May 2016 at 14:58.

  5. #5

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    Its all open to debate but I don't agree that is being supervised. Applying software development best practices isn't being supervised. Applying agile practices isn't being supervised. That is the view point I have been given by "professionals". Other opinions may differ.

    Did you just answer yes or provide a full explanation.
    I answered Yes and once told this would be in scope, I've suggested an explanation, but haven't got it cleared by QDos yet.

  6. #6

    Fingers like lightning

    missinggreenfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    670
    Thanks (Given)
    73
    Thanks (Received)
    32
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    187

    Default

    I'd surprised that only one part of supervision, direction AND control failing would be enough to be a complete IR35 failure, given the two other parts of SDC plus a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation.

    Anyway - I'd suggest that a peer review of code isn't the same as "rigorous scrutiny". But maybe that's just the way that I review the code that I see as part of my project.

  7. #7

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    876
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by missinggreenfields View Post
    I'd surprised that only one part of supervision, direction AND control failing would be enough to be a complete IR35 failure, given the two other parts of SDC plus a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation.

    Anyway - I'd suggest that a peer review of code isn't the same as "rigorous scrutiny". But maybe that's just the way that I review the code that I see as part of my project.
    My understanding is you only need to fail on one of them...

  8. #8

    Fingers like lightning

    missinggreenfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    670
    Thanks (Given)
    73
    Thanks (Received)
    32
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dx4100 View Post
    My understanding is you only need to fail on one of them...
    Your understanding is wrong.

    HMRC need to prove all three pilars of employment to show you are inside IR35; you only need to prove that one of them doesn't apply to be outside.

    See RMC.

  9. #9

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    876
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    9
    Likes (Given)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by missinggreenfields View Post
    Your understanding is wrong.

    HMRC need to prove all three pilars of employment to show you are inside IR35; you only need to prove that one of them doesn't apply.
    Really ? This tulip just got easy

  10. #10

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by missinggreenfields View Post
    I'd surprised that only one part of supervision, direction AND control failing would be enough to be a complete IR35 failure, given the two other parts of SDC plus a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation.

    Anyway - I'd suggest that a peer review of code isn't the same as "rigorous scrutiny". But maybe that's just the way that I review the code that I see as part of my project.
    I can't get the client to accept that a code review isn't "rigorous scrutiny" - in fact this fairly sums up their code reviews. However its what's done afterwards that I'm trying to clarify, any feedback is discussed in the team and a consensus met, there isn't any supervision here, just team ownership.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.