Ministry of Justice role

[turbowoowoo]

I have been offered a role at the MoJ and have now received some of the forms.

I have also been informed that the contract will be the 'new' Capita contract and not the one which caused all the furor recently.

My question is that I have to complete the tax Assurance entity , which is a pile of crap, but will put me in high risk territory.

Have any of you guys completed these new contracts which includes the test and how did you overcome this?

regards

[northernladuk]

Something here might be of interest to you...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...acting-27.html

[turbowoowoo]

Thank you sir...perfect

Something here might be of interest to you...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...acting-27.html

[BolshieBastard]

Well I hope you put enough of your earnings to one side because no matter what some people may want to believe, any reworked IR35 government department contract flies in the face of government policy for off payroll contractors.

In a few years time, I fully expect hmrc to use their retrospective powers and determine these IR35 contracts tax avoidance / evasion. They'll come after you and you'll have many,many sleepless nights.

Just not worth the risk IMO!

[tractor]

...

Well I hope you put enough of your earnings to one side because no matter what some people may want to believe, any reworked IR35 government department contract flies in the face of government policy for off payroll contractors.

In a few years time, I fully expect hmrc to use their retrospective powers and determine these IR35 contracts tax avoidance / evasion. They'll come after you and you'll have many,many sleepless nights.

Just not worth the risk IMO!

And their soon to be newer powers of 'dip into your bank account when it suits them' means that you will have no chance of keeping the money.

[turbowoowoo]

Thanks for the response, but ill leave the contract review to Qdos the experts who can advise.

Well I hope you put enough of your earnings to one side because no matter what some people may want to believe, any reworked IR35 government department contract flies in the face of government policy for off payroll contractors.

In a few years time, I fully expect hmrc to use their retrospective powers and determine these IR35 contracts tax avoidance / evasion. They'll come after you and you'll have many,many sleepless nights.

Just not worth the risk IMO!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I kind of agree with BB - it's obvious that a Government so obsessed with tax avoidance can't afford to get caught with its pants down again so I think it will make sure that its processes for recruitment are absolutely water tight. If a contractor signs something to say that they will pay their 'fair share of taxes' and they are seen to go through a rigourous IR35 status checking procedure then HMG are in the clear. Should it then come to light that their procedures slipped up and individuals were deemed not to have paid their 'fair' share HMG will be able to, self-righteously, throw HMRC's book at them.

(does anyone else feel that the words 'Government' and 'fair' don't really sit well together?)

[malvolio]

I kind of agree with BB - it's obvious that a Government so obsessed with tax avoidance can't afford to get caught with its pants down again so I think it will make sure that its processes for recruitment are absolutely water tight. If a contractor signs something to say that they will pay their 'fair share of taxes' and they are seen to go through a rigourous IR35 status checking procedure then HMG are in the clear. Should it then come to light that their procedures slipped up and individuals were deemed not to have paid their 'fair' share HMG will be able to, self-righteously, throw HMRC's book at them.

(does anyone else feel that the words 'Government' and 'fair' don't really sit well together?)

Except that the reworked CLOne contracts come in two flavours; self employed/agency worker (including incidentally those occupying substantive positions within the organisation, which is what started this all off in the first place) and independent freelances who are in business on their own account and working via an agency. They can't now step back and say that both should be taxed the same, else why have two distinct contractual options?

The question of being in or out of IR35 is still valid of course, and the usual rules apply, hence the need for a positive review by an expert (and the BET score, of course, which are widely regarded as nonsense anyway). But you can't conflate that with some mystical attempt to change tax laws unilaterally.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Except that the reworked CLOne contracts come in two flavours; self employed/agency worker (including incidentally those occupying substantive positions within the organisation, which is what started this all off in the first place) and independent freelances who are in business on their own account and working via an agency. They can't now step back and say that both should be taxed the same, else why have two distinct contractual options?

The question of being in or out of IR35 is still valid of course, and the usual rules apply, hence the need for a positive review by an expert (and the BET score, of course, which are widely regarded as nonsense anyway). But you can't conflate that with some mystical attempt to change tax laws unilaterally.

And how do they determine who should have which contract? IR35 tests as designed by HMRC which will be based on information provided by the contractor (which we don't don't reflect the correct legal position but that's neither here nor there). If the onus is on the contractor to pick one of two very clearly defined worker status' then there is no room for blame for HMG should it later transpire that the 'incorrect' status was chosen

[malvolio]

And how do they determine who should have which contract? IR35 tests as designed by HMRC which will be based on information provided by the contractor (which we don't don't reflect the correct legal position but that's neither here nor there). If the onus is on the contractor to pick one of two very clearly defined worker status' then there is no room for blame for HMG should it later transpire that the 'incorrect' status was chosen

It's up to the hiring agency which one they offer. You would hope they know if they're dealing with an SE or with a Limited Company contractor.