HMRCs new PS tool

[WordIsBond]

I refer you to the post I made some moments ago - according to people close to the project, until not so long ago the prospect of needing to retain an audit trail of what questions were asked and answered had not occurred to HMRC. According to the same people, there would be a number and an outcome available, and a release note of what version was in operation at the time of completing the tool, but no record of what answers had been given. And there would be no way for the client to get a copy of the questions asked and answered in the event of future need.

That may have changed in the past month, but I don't have faith in HMRC to have suddenly produced it out of thin air.

How long would it take YOU to code the capability to include the questions and responses on the printout? How long would it take you to code the capability to record / archive this stuff?

What's the chances HMRC has someone as smart as you available to do that?

We aren't talking rocket science here.

[WordIsBond]

My sense is that they're really only using this tool to catch the very low-hanging fruit and that the rest of what they want will be achieved by: 1) ensuring that PSBs make a blanket determination upfront (primarily this); or 2) they dispute a claim in the usual way.

My guess is they aren't even entirely going for #1. They just want the determination made by someone who isn't heavily biased to make an outside determination. They'll get some blanket determinations, and that's great, as far as they are concerned. And they'll get a bunch of people who clearly should be inside either paying taxes as inside, or moving to brollies (same thing).

Since they keep touting this 90% number, I think they are convinced that more than 75% are low-hanging fruit that should easily be IR35 caught, if someone unbiased were making the determination. If they catch those, they'll be happy -- going after the edge cases is expensive and gains them little anyway.

Perhaps they've been told to make the tool reasonable because the PSBs are recognising that this is going to cost them heavily. So they are giving PSBs a chance to keep their contractors by making it reasonably easy to stay outside. Then, everyone can walk away happy. It worked, they caught a bunch of people who were taking the mick, PSBs can still hire contractors if they really want to and structure it that way, the world didn't end, THE GOVERNMENT DID SOMETHING!!!, everything's great! Let's roll it out for the private sector next!

[breaktwister]

My gut feeling is that the current version of the decision matrix isn't the final one, even if the front end has changed enough so that it is reasonable (eg difference between substitution and sub-contracting finally ironed out).

That way when HMRC suddenly switch to the final version of the matrix, which then catches everyone, they can simply say "we trialled it with loads of people and they were all happy with the outcome, so they said that it was OK to use this" and more people end up caught.

If it is not catching "enough" inside then they will change the wordings and weightings (ever so slightly mind, no real changes at all, nothing to see here) so that more are caught.

[RonBW]

How long would it take YOU to code the capability to include the questions and responses on the printout? How long would it take you to code the capability to record / archive this stuff?

What's the chances HMRC has someone as smart as you available to do that?

We aren't talking rocket science here.

How long would it take public sector to design, implement, size, buy kit, get kit installed in the data centre, test, release?

I'm sure you're right though.

[jamesbrown]

[RonBW]

.

Called it

My gut feeling is that the current version of the decision matrix isn't the final one, even if the front end has changed enough so that it is reasonable (eg difference between substitution and sub-contracting finally ironed out).

That way when HMRC suddenly switch to the final version of the matrix, which then catches everyone, they can simply say "we trialled it with loads of people and they were all happy with the outcome, so they said that it was OK to use this" and more people end up caught.

[jamesbrown]

Called it

I caveated my posts for this reason; ultimately, the matrix is easily re-calibrated and, probably, the last thing they finalize. To be fair, they made it clear that the results couldn't be relied upon, but I assumed they were referring to tweaking. That said, from reading the link, I get the impression that not everyone is testing the same thing (e.g. the point about substitution doesn't ring true from my testing, although I agree on the point about fettering). Sounds as though we're testing from the bloody mainline. Only HMG could make beta testing look like rocket science

[Yorkie62]

As far as I can tell, it needs to be fairly weak though, as in the PSB telling you what to do, when and where to do it,.......
Moderate combinations of D&C across the above elements may lead to an indeterminate or caught scenario in the absence of a legitimate RoS (which immediately terminates the process as outside).

This bit interests me. Is there any scope in the tool, as used to be accepted, that those of us that work on list-x sites don't have the determination of where we work and using our own equipment. This used to be acceptable on the grounds of national security and was therefore ignored so long as other working practices made you none permie like.
Anyone tried a combination of inputs for someone working on a list-x site in the private sector?

[jamesbrown]

This bit interests me. Is there any scope in the tool, as used to be accepted, that those of us that work on list-x sites don't have the determination of where we work and using our own equipment. This used to be acceptable on the grounds of national security and was therefore ignored so long as other working practices made you none permie like.
Anyone tried a combination of inputs for someone working on a list-x site in the private sector?

No, it isn't that nuanced, and you raise a fair point about how neutral factors (those that cannot discriminate between employment and self-employment) are weighted. I suspect this would receive a negative weighting, and it shouldn't. However, bear in mind the posts immediately above this one; it looks as though the tool doesn't have sensible decision logic yet.

[jamesbrown]

They've just closed the beta to further feedback, indicating that the public launch will happen "soon".