IR35 Update following discussion group yesterday - survey request

[WordIsBond]

Do you think the client will err on the side of absolving themselves of any potential action or shove it all onto the contractor?

This is why any reasonable solution involving the client making the decision has to have the client paying the employer's NI.

Just think about it. The client says, "Yes, this should be taxed as disguised employment. But no, that doesn't mean we are giving employment rights or paying the employers NI. That's the worker's problem." That's really equitable, isn't it?

If the client is going to be put into the position of declaring contracts to be inside or outside IR35, the "inside" decision has to come with a cost to them, or it is patently unfair. Ideally, they should have to confer employment rights AND pay the NI, but at a minimum they should have to pay the NI.

[pr1]

This is why any reasonable solution involving the client making the decision has to have the client paying the employer's NI.

Just think about it. The client says, "Yes, this should be taxed as disguised employment. But no, that doesn't mean we are giving employment rights or paying the employers NI. That's the worker's problem." That's really equitable, isn't it?

If the client is going to be put into the position of declaring contracts to be inside or outside IR35, the "inside" decision has to come with a cost to them, or it is patently unfair. Ideally, they should have to confer employment rights AND pay the NI, but at a minimum they should have to pay the NI.

don't forget this is the government for big businesses

you don't think your rate will suddenly drop by 13.8% if this was the case? whether the client pays it directly or you pay it, you're the one that will be losing out, not them

[The Spartan]

Can you imagine being at an interview and the client tells you they declare all contractors inside IR35?

I know what my response would be "No thanks, I'll show myself out"

[pr1]

Can you imagine being at an interview and the client tells you they declare all contractors inside IR35?

I know what my response would be "No thanks, I'll show myself out"

i'm sure we all will be, at first, but what about if every client does it, for a year, two years? how long can you hold out?

[DaveB]

i'm sure we all will be, at first, but what about if every client does it, for a year, two years? how long can you hold out?

Which is why there needs to be a liability on the clients for making that decision. Make them liable for employers NI if they do so and it will make at least some of them stop and think about it properly.

[The Spartan]

i'm sure we all will be, at first, but what about if every client does it, for a year, two years? how long can you hold out?

It's not a case of holding out, I would just get a cushy position at a consultancy and deliver sub-standard service

The client hires me because they want me to build an automated testing framework, is that direction? Under the currently considered proposals that would put me under IR35 (maybe I'm being a bit neurotic here).

Thing is though they'd have no say on how I create it, it's too easy for clients to say yeah it's inside IR35 as there are no consequences for them.

[sociopath]

Yeah good luck with that thought.

Do you think the client will err on the side of absolving themselves of any potential action or shove it all onto the contractor?

'Supervision' can be anything as simple as 'making sure work was done to required standard,' or making sure the contractor turned up for the days billed.

Does you client oversee the work/tasks you do?

I wouldn't classify confirming the end results meet the specification and validity of invoice as supervision.

[The Spartan]

Does you client oversee the work/tasks you do?

I wouldn't classify confirming the end results meet the specification and validity of invoice as supervision.

BB's point is it very easy to construe something as SD or C even though it isn't hence my point that a client hiring you for a project is in effect direction.

[gables]

It's not a case of holding out, I would just get a cushy position at a consultancy and deliver sub-standard service

The client hires me because they want me to build an automated testing framework, is that direction? Under the currently considered proposals that would put me under IR35 (maybe I'm being a bit neurotic here).

Thing is though they'd have no say on how I create it, it's too easy for clients to say yeah it's inside IR35 as there are no consequences for them.

No, surely that can't be classed as direction. That's the requirement\your deliverable, if they told you how to do it, then that's direction.

[gables]

This is what IPSE are trying to flog which I don't back.

I would have been like you until I started networking and talking to other people who run businesses - while there are a lot of one man bands not all contractors are one man bands. Some people have expanded their companies permanently while others do it on occasion.

The close company route we follow makes it easy to take on extra staff etc when and if we want. There as having different types of company structures means more legislation, more paperwork to comply with that legislation and increased costs for us.

I agree and there's the LTD route for that as we currently have it.

Your statement suggests wanting to operate as a sole trader is less business like, which is isn't, but at the moment it's not an option and it should be.