IR35 Update following discussion group yesterday - survey request

[MrMarkyMark]

And in my mind a disguised employee is NOT a contractor who has chosen to leave permiedom\made redundant etc, chase contracts whether through agencies or direct, foregoes any employee benefits, funds their own training\skills etc even if they work in BAU\support\development\projects and have long stints at clients.

Reminds me of when I used to contract for the vendor of the software, I specialise in, with regards to skill level.

Vendor - "You probaly know the software better than any of our (perm) consultants."

Me - "I have to."

[sociopath]

[QUOTE=northernladuk;2146683]

23 month rule - unfair.
Why? 2 years is more than enough to get caught part and parcel. We are shouting at HMRC that we do 3-6 months gigs yet you say 2 years cap is unfair? There has to be a limit to differentiate us.

Some people get repeat business and the gaps would look suspicious under your guidelines.
Don't agree if done right

I agree with Sue. Some project last longer than 24 months especially in other industries. Duration does not make you part and parcel. Your working practices do. I would suggest making it your contract has to be project specific. Self billing invoices issued to clearly define services provided to end client. That way there is a clear paperwork trail. Those most at risk of becoming part and parcel of the organisation are those that have no defined project (e.g. Central Support).

[northernladuk]

Indeed but again I'd much rather have the chance to do up to 2 years and move to stay outside IR35 than be in by default from day one.

I'd also argue there a large number of contractors that make themselves part and parcel well before two years and of those that have been there 2 years plus the ones that are still working hard at protecting their IR35 status and remember to be a contractor after two years is pretty small.

Some projects do last two years but are in a minority compared to people that have done multiple ones and just keep getting handed the next one.

[northernladuk]

And I'd like to add as much as I am quite happy to talk about peoples thoughts on my tongue in cheek posts I am surprised how people want to argue the point about small numbers of people being affected and want to argue it back to where we are right now.... which, and forgive me if I am mistaken, is where we are just about to be royally f**ked.

I'd much rather take some hits and some questionable numbers like the 23 month one than where we are heading now so am bemused why people want to argue it rather than consider it.

Maybe I ought to take a seat and discuss the other possible options people have put forward.... oh...

[gables]

[QUOTE=sociopath;2147016]

23 month rule - unfair.
Why? 2 years is more than enough to get caught part and parcel. We are shouting at HMRC that we do 3-6 months gigs yet you say 2 years cap is unfair? There has to be a limit to differentiate us.

Some people get repeat business and the gaps would look suspicious under your guidelines.
Don't agree if done right

I agree with Sue. Some project last longer than 24 months especially in other industries. Duration does not make you part and parcel. Your working practices do. I would suggest making it your contract has to be project specific. Self billing invoices issued to clearly define services provided to end client. That way there is a clear paperwork trail. Those most at risk of becoming part and parcel of the organisation are those that have no defined project (e.g. Central Support).

For me though, you're no less a contractor working in central support than those who deride them. Presumably the client had a short term requirement to fill e.g maternity, so a contractor who's product is a combination of skill set and flexibility fills that gap, provides a service and leaves when the employee returns.

[sociopath]

[QUOTE=gables;2147054]

For me though, you're no less a contractor working in central support than those who deride them. Presumably the client had a short term requirement to fill e.g maternity, so a contractor who's product is a combination of skill set and flexibility fills that gap, provides a service and leaves when the employee returns.

That's a fair point but could you consider filling a role of a employee temporary lead to SDC as that role would have been subject to SDC as normally filled by an employee?

[Zero Liability]

It's not the sole test yet and it may end up not being the sole test; for instance, you'd still potentially have lack of MoO, which is probably a key consideration to an 'engager', i.e. flexibility to bin off as required, with no further ties, but with a skill set that requires a specialist, meaning both a permie and temp would be unsuitable given all these desiderata. I think Jamesbrown's idea of tying 'outside' status to being able to relate the role to a specific, time-bound project with its own set budget is probably the most reasonable approach to it.

[SueEllen]

I'd much rather take some hits and some questionable numbers like the 23 month one than where we are heading now so am bemused why people want to argue it rather than consider it.

Maybe I ought to take a seat and discuss the other possible options people have put forward.... oh...

We have to remember we aren't only talking about IT when talking about contractors as there are engineers, accountants, people in marketing, law, construction, design etc who also work as contractors.

The vast majority of contractors will have short term projects and some will have multiple projects at once so these rules would have no impact on them, but there will be those e.g. engineers whose project will last longer.

Having a defined budget for a piece of work would be a better way to do it. However this would mean some agencies have to get their act together and copy the upper contract properly.

[gables]

[QUOTE=sociopath;2147068]

That's a fair point but could you consider filling a role of a employee temporary lead to SDC as that role would have been subject to SDC as normally filled by an employee?

It may for the reason you say. I suppose I have a fundamental issue with HMRC's view of employment status and especially if it reduced to a single test. Maybe Zero's point below holds water.

It's not the sole test yet and it may end up not being the sole test; for instance, you'd still potentially have lack of MoO, which is probably a key consideration to an 'engager', i.e. flexibility to bin off as required, with no further ties, but with a skill set that requires a specialist, meaning both a permie and temp would be unsuitable given all these desiderata. I think Jamesbrown's idea of tying 'outside' status to being able to relate the role to a specific, time-bound project with its own set budget is probably the most reasonable approach to it.

[gables]

We have to remember we aren't only talking about IT when talking about contractors as there are engineers, accountants, people in marketing, law, construction, design etc who also work as contractors.

The vast majority of contractors will have short term projects and some will have multiple projects at once so these rules would have no impact on them, but there will be those e.g. engineers whose project will last longer.

Having a defined budget for a piece of work would be a better way to do it. However this would mean some agencies have to get their act together and copy the upper contract properly.

These other contractors, do they have to work via ltd companies or are they able to operate differently?