HMRCs new PS tool

[jamesbrown]

Mine's working ok. I was a bit confused by the most recent invitation for beta testing, which gave a further 30 days test period. Don't understand how they can have a beta test running alongside a live release. Once it's out there in public and people start actively using it to make determinations, you can't really continue tinkering with it.

Yes, a 30-day test. I can only assume that they're using the feedback to support the next iteration, but the beta/test version won't provide supportable determinations and yet the (presumably same) live version will They've basically collapsed a beta and full release into a single fugtastic smeg.

[jamesbrown]

Oh, and the link seems to be working now; time to do some checking...

[MrMarkyMark]

Mine's working ok. I was a bit confused by the most recent invitation for beta testing, which gave a further 30 days test period. Don't understand how they can have a beta test running alongside a live release. Once it's out there in public and people start actively using it to make determinations, you can't really continue tinkering with it.

This is HMRC we are talking about

[jamesbrown]

OK, I just tried a few test cases.

I think they're going to struggle to achieve what they want (90% caught) if the current weighting matrix is anything like the final matrix. It's not difficult to achieve an outside position. Basically, from what I can tell, if you have a legitimate RoS or a "reasonable" lack of D&C, you're going to be outside. I tried both the actual terms of some recent contracts and a few variations thereof, and they all exited very quickly with an outside position. I suspect you'd need a lack of RoS coupled with a moderate to high degree of D&C to have an inside determination. Just an initial impression though, as I only tried a few cases (back to proper work now )... but, so far, I haven't managed to generate an "inside" position

That said, I'm not sure it really matters. Are PSBs really going to use this with an open mind? Doesn't it really come down to whether the PSB actually wants a contractor or a deemed employee? In other words, they might use the tool to evidence a position, but probably not to determine one.

[MrMarkyMark]

OK, I just tried a few test cases.

I think they're going to struggle to achieve what they want (90% caught) if the current weighting matrix is anything like the final matrix. It's not difficult to achieve an outside position. Basically, from what I can tell, if you have a legitimate RoS or a "reasonable" lack of D&C, you're going to be outside. I tried both the actual terms of some recent contracts and a few variations thereof, and they all exited very quickly with an outside position. I suspect you'd need a lack of RoS coupled with a moderate to high degree of D&C to have an inside determination. Just an initial impression though, as I only tried a few cases (back to proper work now )... but, so far, I haven't managed to generate an "inside" position

That said, I'm not sure it really matters. Are PSBs really going to use this with an open mind? Doesn't it really come down to whether the PSB actually wants a contractor or a deemed employee? In other words, they might use the tool to evidence a position, but probably not to determine one.

WTFF, less than 90% caught.


Wheres the £400m going to come from??

Our tax money is being spent on this BS.

[teapot418]

OK, I just tried a few test cases.

I think they're going to struggle to achieve what they want (90% caught) if the current weighting matrix is anything like the final matrix. It's not difficult to achieve an outside position. Basically, from what I can tell, if you have a legitimate RoS or a "reasonable" lack of D&C, you're going to be outside. I tried both the actual terms of some recent contracts and a few variations thereof, and they all exited very quickly with an outside position. I suspect you'd need a lack of RoS coupled with a moderate to high degree of D&C to have an inside determination. Just an initial impression though, as I only tried a few cases (back to proper work now )... but, so far, I haven't managed to generate an "inside" position

That said, I'm not sure it really matters. Are PSBs really going to use this with an open mind? Doesn't it really come down to whether the PSB actually wants a contractor or a deemed employee? In other words, they might use the tool to evidence a position, but probably not to determine one.

Did you try an "inside" scenario? With the previous version, I had heard people saying they could not get a caught determination. I expect HMRC are missing a 'not' in the code

[Qdos Contractor]

OK, I just tried a few test cases.

I think they're going to struggle to achieve what they want (90% caught) if the current weighting matrix is anything like the final matrix. It's not difficult to achieve an outside position. Basically, from what I can tell, if you have a legitimate RoS or a "reasonable" lack of D&C, you're going to be outside. I tried both the actual terms of some recent contracts and a few variations thereof, and they all exited very quickly with an outside position. I suspect you'd need a lack of RoS coupled with a moderate to high degree of D&C to have an inside determination. Just an initial impression though, as I only tried a few cases (back to proper work now )... but, so far, I haven't managed to generate an "inside" position

Yep, that pretty sums up my experience with it too. Polar opposite to what we expected, but we'll see what the public release looks like. If it stays as it is I hope they'll share it with their own status inspectors...

[jamesbrown]

Did you try an "inside" scenario? With the previous version, I had heard people saying they could not get a caught determination. I expect HMRC are missing a 'not' in the code

No, not aggressively. I just tried a couple of variations of the universe of contracts that I'm used to, and I didn't probe any edge cases too much, such as strong D&C. I'll try a few later. But it's interesting to note that anyone with a legitimate RoS (i.e. would the client accept a sub, and would you pay them?) would be de-facto outside, regardless of D&C, so it seems as though there's a vague correspondence with case law in that any one of the major factors is adequate. The tool terminates when there's sufficient evidence of being outside (so I haven't got too far through it yet). I hesitate to offer too many thoughts on what constitutes sufficient D&C at this stage (is it really the "bound, hand a foot" from RMC?), because I WFH 100%, which won't be the same as most of you, but I'll play around with that later. Anyway, one thing that strikes me so far: if you're clearly outside in reality, you're going to get an outside determination. This is encouraging, of course, but only if this weighting applies in the final version (something tells me it won't). The tools is also pretty clear, sequential, and easy to use, so I don't have any major criticisms w/r to the product either.

For someone with some time on their hands, and when the final version is released, the first thing to check will be whether HMRC's own cases from their guidance documents lead to the results they claim

[northernladuk]

OK, I just tried a few test cases.

I think they're going to struggle to achieve what they want (90% caught) if the current weighting matrix is anything like the final matrix. It's not difficult to achieve an outside position. Basically, from what I can tell, if you have a legitimate RoS or a "reasonable" lack of D&C, you're going to be outside. I tried both the actual terms of some recent contracts and a few variations thereof, and they all exited very quickly with an outside position. I suspect you'd need a lack of RoS coupled with a moderate to high degree of D&C to have an inside determination. Just an initial impression though, as I only tried a few cases (back to proper work now )... but, so far, I haven't managed to generate an "inside" position

That said, I'm not sure it really matters. Are PSBs really going to use this with an open mind? Doesn't it really come down to whether the PSB actually wants a contractor or a deemed employee? In other words, they might use the tool to evidence a position, but probably not to determine one.

The emphasis on RoS is a bit worrying. PS is a difficult sector to carry out RoS with all the bureaucracy and frameworks to work through and their aversion to anything out of the ordinary. I imagine many places won't do this even if it's stipulated in the contract. I got close to getting a sub in when I left but it just wasn't worth the hassle. I got agreement to do it but it took too long so didn't bother in the end and I am sure it will be the same in many depts. HMRC must also know that many courts see it as a sham so people are going to have to be very careful.

Easy for us all to tick and say it's in the contract but if the tool requires us to go ask our clients there is going to be a massive problem if they start turning round and say no. We will know the clause is a sham and have to either hold our hands up or make a false declaration.

There is also the fact that a vast number of contractors don't know what is involved in carrying out the RoS, sourcing a bod, training up in own time etc.....

I don't think that area is going to be as straightforward as it looks.

[Maslins]

My understanding from an FCSA talk last week is that if you use the tool (presumably the "final" one not a beta test one) and get an outside IR35 response, it's binding on HMRC. Ie you print it, sign and date it, and as long as you can evidence that you didn't lie on any of the questions (I guess that's where subjectivity comes in, especially on whether a RoS clause could ever be used in practice) then HMRC can't challenge it.

Is it possible this is why they delayed it so long, as they realised many contractors would show as outside IR35, so best option is to scare the PS into having to make a decision before they really know the criteria...