+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Posts 41 to 50 of 73
  1. #41

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default IR35 tool expenses question

    Is anyone else seeing a clear contradiction in the guidance for the expenses question in the toolkit, which I agree with previous threads appears to heavily weight the outcome? It states expenses 'should not apply to those incurred as a result from working away from home for a particular engagement', but what else is travel and subsistence incurred for? Then in what I see as a clear contradiction to this the guidance previously states that expenses are those necessary for the completion of the engagement - which accommodation and travel costs, when commuting is not feasible, surely are?

    This guidance seems most unclear and unhelpful to me, and if a client interprets the situation in a way that legitimate, necessary expenses like this are considered 'not relevant' - the result of the calculator will be weighted to outside.

    Anyone else getting/challenging/negotiating this issue?

    Cheers

  2. #42

    Fingers like lightning

    Qdos Contractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    530
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    55
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    70

    Default

    It's been updated again...
    Qdos Contractor - IR35 experts

  3. #43

    Godlike

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks (Given)
    61
    Thanks (Received)
    344
    Likes (Given)
    532
    Likes (Received)
    1552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qdos Contractor View Post
    It's been updated again...
    What, specifically, have you noticed?

    If this ever had any credibility in a tribunal or court (it didn't), it certainly doesn't now

  4. #44

    Fingers like lightning

    Qdos Contractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    530
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    55
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    What, specifically, have you noticed?

    If this ever had any credibility in a tribunal or court (it didn't), it certainly doesn't now
    More explanation about office holders, although I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

    The substitution question has been reversed - so now you answer 'no' if you can send a substitute. Not quite sure why; perhaps too many people relying on RoS in HMRC's eyes?

    In the 'criteria' for substitute they've change 'unwilling but not unable' to 'unwilling or unable'. A seemingly small but actually fairly significant tweak.

    A big change to the rectifying faulty work options:
    • Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, and would incur significant additional expenses or material costs
    • Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, but wouldn't incur any costs
    • No - the worker would put it right in their usual hours at the usual rate of pay, or for an additional fee
    • No - the worker wouldn't be able to put it right because the work is time-specific or for a single event
    • No they wouldn't need to put it right
    The first two could confuse people. What classes as 'significant additional expenses' and, with the second, surely time is a cost?

    Seb
    Qdos Contractor - IR35 experts

  5. #45

    Godlike

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks (Given)
    61
    Thanks (Received)
    344
    Likes (Given)
    532
    Likes (Received)
    1552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qdos Contractor View Post
    More explanation about office holders, although I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

    The substitution question has been reversed - so now you answer 'no' if you can send a substitute. Not quite sure why; perhaps too many people relying on RoS in HMRC's eyes?

    In the 'criteria' for substitute they've change 'unwilling but not unable' to 'unwilling or unable'. A seemingly small but actually fairly significant tweak.

    A big change to the rectifying faulty work options:
    • Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, and would incur significant additional expenses or material costs
    • Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, but wouldn't incur any costs
    • No - the worker would put it right in their usual hours at the usual rate of pay, or for an additional fee
    • No - the worker wouldn't be able to put it right because the work is time-specific or for a single event
    • No they wouldn't need to put it right
    The first two could confuse people. What classes as 'significant additional expenses' and, with the second, surely time is a cost?

    Seb
    Agreed, the sub change is significant and needed (for consistency w/ case law). The change to the rectification of faulty work clause is a total mess (time is most definitely an "expense", because it's time spent not earning elsewhere). Third time lucky?

  6. #46

    Fingers like lightning

    Andy Hallett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    771
    Thanks (Given)
    12
    Thanks (Received)
    86
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    302

    Default

    Is anyone keeping a version log?

  7. #47

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    20
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    The changes make it harde to get outside.

    If you don't have substitution you are going to now have to both have to pay your expenses and use your own vehicle to get out.

  8. #48

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    32,823
    Thanks (Given)
    132
    Thanks (Received)
    1287
    Likes (Given)
    1684
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    What if you've already been declared outside and the new version contradicts that?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  9. #49

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    20
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Don't think I will mention the changes to my client.. no need to worry them unnecessarily.

  10. #50

    Godlike

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,021
    Thanks (Given)
    61
    Thanks (Received)
    344
    Likes (Given)
    532
    Likes (Received)
    1552

    Default

    Incidentally, I see the current version is now 1.3.0-final.

    Either they've been very busy, or they're about as good at software versioning as they are at understanding IR35 case law.

    NLUK: they agreed to honour all decisions from the ESS. Insofar as it means anything (arguably, it doesn't, because the interpretation of the "correct inputs" is half the battle), then they will need to stand by each and every version at the time of input, hence the need to print and record the output.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

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.