• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Letter - Cabinet Office requirements to confirm the tax arrangements of temp contract

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    I would instruct my accountant that I'm PAYE for the duration of the contract.

    But I'd only take that contract if there was nothing else on the table and I'd been benched for 6 months (which was the last time I took an NHS contract, quite some time ago).
    I would get an IR35 friendly contract reviewed by Qdos, take the work, and allow my insurers / the PCG to fight out any investigation if it ever happened.

    Or look to work in the public sector via a third party consultancy, which I've done before via Steria, Fujitsu and others - there's no restriction on rates or this kind of rubbish that way.
    Best Forum Advisor 2014
    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
      I would get an IR35 friendly contract reviewed by Qdos, take the work, and allow my insurers / the PCG to fight out any investigation if it ever happened.

      Or look to work in the public sector via a third party consultancy, which I've done before via Steria, Fujitsu and others - there's no restriction on rates or this kind of rubbish that way.
      Where I agree this would probably end up in favour of the contractor it's not somewhere I would want to go just for a single gig that probably isn't going to pay that well either. I would be with Cojak on this one and avoid if possible first and only take the risk of a huge fight if there are no other options. You would win and should be little risk due to the insurances but not something I would be wanting to invite willingly.
      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
        Yes, but it only costs me about £360 a year in hosting fees. Not the arbitrary £1200 HMRC have come up with.
        How long do you spend developing, maintaining and updating said web site, and whats your internal charge rate? Probably not hard to tick the £1,200 box when you look at it that way.

        I agree though, the BET rules are almost meaningless.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Jessica@WhiteFieldTax View Post
          How long do you spend developing, maintaining and updating said web site, and whats your internal charge rate? Probably not hard to tick the £1,200 box when you look at it that way.

          I agree though, the BET rules are almost meaningless.
          True, if I thought of it that way I'd certainly exceed the £1200 box.

          One thing I've never understood is that if the BETs are supposed to indicator of your risk of investigation, how does that work exactly? We can take the BETs ourselves but how do HMRC know the answers to the questions? How can they use it as a way of targeting investigations? It seems like a lot of the questions would require an investigation in the first place in order for HMRC to get the answers.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
            True, if I thought of it that way I'd certainly exceed the £1200 box.

            One thing I've never understood is that if the BETs are supposed to indicator of your risk of investigation, how does that work exactly? We can take the BETs ourselves but how do HMRC know the answers to the questions? How can they use it as a way of targeting investigations? It seems like a lot of the questions would require an investigation in the first place in order for HMRC to get the answers.
            I can't find a link but I'm pretty sure I read an article on here from QDOS stating it begins with a PAYE/VAT investigation and the BETs come in to play then - from your answers and supporting evidence a decision is made on whether or not to investigate your IR35 status.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
              True, if I thought of it that way I'd certainly exceed the £1200 box.

              One thing I've never understood is that if the BETs are supposed to indicator of your risk of investigation, how does that work exactly? We can take the BETs ourselves but how do HMRC know the answers to the questions? How can they use it as a way of targeting investigations? It seems like a lot of the questions would require an investigation in the first place in order for HMRC to get the answers.
              They can't and they don't. It isn't a targeting tool, it's supposed to provide some measure of clarity for business owners (i.e. a self-assessment) based on how HMRC would like to see IR35 applied, and not the reality of IR35 case law, which applies to contracts in the first instance and not businesses.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by GazCol View Post
                I can't find a link but I'm pretty sure I read an article on here from QDOS stating it begins with a PAYE/VAT investigation and the BETs come in to play then - from your answers and supporting evidence a decision is made on whether or not to investigate your IR35 status.
                OK, that makes sense I suppose.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
                  Hah, almost identical to me then.

                  * Client risk test - all of my clients have been good payers so no points for me.

                  Score: 11 - medium risk.

                  There's your problem. One client went bust on me and Bingo, extra 10 points. However this was more than a year ago and of course since then my due diligence has been ratched up a notch and it's not happened since. Boom, 10 points less than I was earlier.
                  "Israel, Palestine, Cats." He Said
                  "See?"

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
                    They can't and they don't. It isn't a targeting tool, it's supposed to provide some measure of clarity for business owners (i.e. a self-assessment) based on how HMRC would like to see IR35 applied, and not the reality of IR35 case law, which applies to contracts in the first instance and not businesses.
                    Right. My last Qdos review stated that HMRC do not use the test - it's for business owners guidance only.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      They don't use the test in selecting targets.

                      However, if you are subject to an enquiry and you can prove that you are 'low risk' they will close the case down and will not bother you for three years. See page 10 of this.
                      Qdos Contractor - IR35 experts

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X