IR35 - Guilty as charged! - Updated May 2016 - NOT GUILTY!

[dx4100]

Possibly we don't hear about the cases that close quickly or don't get off the starting blocks.

The MO now appears to be a "Check of Employer Records" which asks, along with copies of contracts etc, if you've considered IR35 and why you think it does not apply. Getting professional advice at this stage seems to be critical - anecdotally about a third of enquiries go no further. Some insurances cover this, some don't - technically it's not an investigation at this point, so check your small print.

IPSE+ covers this ^

[Contreras]

Possibly we don't hear about the cases that close quickly or don't get off the starting blocks.

The MO now appears to be a "Check of Employer Records" which asks, along with copies of contracts etc, if you've considered IR35 and why you think it does not apply. Getting professional advice at this stage seems to be critical - anecdotally about a third of enquiries go no further. Some insurances cover this, some don't - technically it's not an investigation at this point, so check your small print.

IPSE+ covers this ^

And vanilla IPSE doesn't, afaik. That's important to note if it's the IR35 "cover" you're after.

[mudskipper]

And vanilla IPSE doesn't, afaik. That's important to note if it's the IR35 "cover" you're after.

Yes, that's correct. Standard membership doesn't cover the pre-inquiry stage. Plus does, as well as a lot of other benefits, particularly business interruption.

[theroyale]

Just re-read the whole thread as I missed it first time around...

I think some of the people having ago at him throughout the thread owe him an apology. Came here no doubt at the lowest point of his life and poster where arseholes with him.

FFS if we can't support each other during a IR35 investigation and stop being dicks when can we.

Shameful stuff...

Thanks to the OP for coming back and letting us know the outcome.

The lesson learnt from it for me, or not as I already do it, is use a IR35 specialist for legal and insurance AND an accountant who understand contractors.

PCG+ and Abbey Tax all the way for me...

+10

[DaveB]

Just re-read the whole thread as I missed it first time around...

I think some of the people having ago at him throughout the thread owe him an apology. Came here no doubt at the lowest point of his life and poster where arseholes with him.

FFS if we can't support each other during a IR35 investigation and stop being dicks when can we.

Shameful stuff...

Thanks to the OP for coming back and letting us know the outcome.

The lesson learnt from it for me, or not as I already do it, is use a IR35 specialist for legal and insurance AND an accountant who understand contractors.

PCG+ and Abbey Tax all the way for me...

I think this covers your first points.

[jamesbrown]

Just re-read the whole thread as I missed it first time around...

I think some of the people having ago at him throughout the thread owe him an apology. Came here no doubt at the lowest point of his life and poster where arseholes with him.

FWIW, I agree as one of those that was, er, skeptical. There are so many sockies around and the reference to HMRE triggered by sock-o-meter, I'm afraid. Sincere apologies to the OP. I'm really glad it worked out for them.

[psychocandy]

I think this covers your first points.

Is that NLUK in the pic?

[Munchers]

Glad u have a favourable outcome - well done.
Would you be prepared to post the questions they asked you?

Cheers, Mr C.

I'll post them soon - I haven't got access at the moment.

[Munchers]

Just out of interest:
What sort of Qs were directed to you? Was it Qs to ascertain SDC and MOO? Were there any other avenues they explored that night be considered surprising or irrelevant?

Do you have an example or two of things requested which you were not legally required to provide?

Did they contact your end Client(s)? If so do you know how they approached that and what they asked them?

It's nearly 18 months since we submitted responses so I'll post questions later.

The questions were varied and at times appeared innocent. They covered all the main points you'd expect about how many contracts? What did you do? Who did you report too? How did you work with staff, which office did you work in, did you have a desk etc etc. All pretty obvious for experienced IR35 people but worded to catch you out if you didn't know.

The one that really struck me was asking for end client contact details and then later asking for the agency details. The questions seemed innocent! We would have provided this but were advised (very clearly) that this was phishing and if we provided this information we were giving our permission for them to make direct contact. Our advisors basically ignored these questions and told HMRC to use the law to access this information - i.e. turn into an official IR35 investigation rather than the compliance route they were using.

[Munchers]

Fancy sharing the questions and which ones are optional?

Congratulations on the win - did they say "we think we're right, but we'll let you off" kind of thing, or was it a "we're wrong"? I think I know the answer to that question

Just said they wouldn't be taking this any further. Also that they wouldn't test any contracts for 3 years - interestingly they choose the words carefully by saying they wouldn't be back but they didn't say they'd consider the company to be outside IR35. I suppose that means they can come back in 4 years and test and then apply retrospectively for the previous three years if they decide you are now inside?