Government to consult on tax avoidance in the private sector

[madame SasGuru]

They'll probably end up with a set of role titles that are blanket in and out:

PMO Analyst - in
PM - in
Technical Specialist - out
and so on.

They could then go case by case for those that argue the toss because they can't get the candidates.

Says someone who I believe is a technical Specialist.

[Fred Bloggs]

+1

Soon the contractor supply pool will be 90% newbies with neither the experience nor the clue to realise that the old hands have taken their permanent jobs or just retired from the market completely.

In my field, it seems to have virtually happened already. The severest recession in memory from 2014 onwards in the energy industries has left my field of expertise desperately short of experienced people, globally. Soon I will be retired too. I do actually worry about the industry, there is always great potential to kill people or destroy the environment by taking one or two wrong decisions.

[madame SasGuru]

But how would HR decide in advance that contractor X should be allowed to substitute or not? Or won't be told what to do?
They could ask the hiring manager "are you happy for this contractor to substitute? Do you agree this contractor will not be supervised or controlled?"

Maybe it just becomes part of the form filling for the hiring manger to feed HR with what they need to know to determine status.
And when their roles get advertised as inside, and no one applies, they'll soon start filling those forms in differently.

If I'm hiring for a particular skill set to cover the fact I don't have that skillset within my team, why would I let that person bring a substitute in who I haven't interviewed. And once I've interviewed and accepted him its no longer an unfettered right of substitution

[Lance]

If I'm hiring for a particular skill set to cover the fact I don't have that skillset within my team, why would I let that person bring a substitute in who I haven't interviewed. And once I've interviewed and accepted him its no longer an unfettered right of substitution

interviewing to assess whether they have the skills isn't a 'fettered right to substitution'. It's a right to substitute someone with the relevant skills. You're just validating whether they have the skills or not.

[LondonManc]

Says someone who I believe is a technical Specialist.

I'm a permie, so DGAF

[ChimpMaster]

Well done. What's your plan?

The best of this is that I don't have a plan.

I just want to spend time with my kids.

[Graham1967]

Many permietractors and businesses have sowed what the rest of us will now reap.

Every place I go to I find the usual bods who believe that they are a contractor, but have been in the same place for five years. They are outside the scope as they work from home on a friday ( yes really) and the one that always gets me is "oh I leave all that to my accountant"

I also find they have the biggest newest car in the car park, brag to the permies how much they are coining in and how little tax they pay.

It will be the final piece in the jigsaw for the intermediaries legislation, which was started to take shape 3 years ago.

Those permietractors will not know whats hit them until its too late.

For the rest of us, we will take the hit, demand a better rate due to up-skilling, or go B2B.

[simes]

If a private sector client uses the CEST tool it will show them how to make someone outside. A real right of substitution being one easy way. Another being not telling the contractor how to do the work. That makes it easy for the client to determine that a temp filing clerk is almost certainly inside, and a specialist IT consultant telling them how to do a,b,c is definitely outside. Simples.

1. Why would a client, Private or Otherwise, bother with the CEST to the contractors' advantageous when that decision could Still lead to an investigation of the client and a wasting of their time further down the line? For my part, in clients' shoes, I would just stick everyone Inside IR35 and let the contractor battle it out after the fact.

2. RoS, while laudatory, I can't really see working for the larger part. Security badges, Logons etc all take time. Also, if the interview process determines the client likes person A for this and that reason, why would a client then agree to an undermining of all that through Substitution? If you decide on a plumber for some work, and he sends in his monkey instead, himself never to be seen again, you might have reservations.

Dunno, speculating. Am sure others have alternative experience of both points.

[Fred Bloggs]

I think I'd really struggle with an unfettered RoS. The reason my skills are in demand is that almost nobody these days has the specific combination of 40+ years experience and industry knowledge in my particular speciality. Everyone else I know has retired or semi retired and works only when they feel like it. So, I am in demand. But - Who the heck would I sub to? On the other hand, I think D&C would be a slam dunk, so given the three pillars of IR35 determination ALL have to be there, I would be very confident on D&C. But it's moot anyway, my work now is all outside Europe.

[swamp]

1. Why would a client, Private or Otherwise, bother with the CEST to the contractors' advantageous when that decision could Still lead to an investigation of the client and a wasting of their time further down the line? For my part, in clients' shoes, I would just stick everyone Inside IR35 and let the contractor battle it out after the fact.

2. RoS, while laudatory, I can't really see working for the larger part. Security badges, Logons etc all take time. Also, if the interview process determines the client likes person A for this and that reason, why would a client then agree to an undermining of all that through Substitution? If you decide on a plumber for some work, and he sends in his monkey instead, himself never to be seen again, you might have reservations.

Dunno, speculating. Am sure others have alternative experience of both points.

1. CEST is easy to use and HMRC will stand by its result. The liability is with the agency not the client or contractor, so it's in the clients interest to use the tool. If a client puts everyone inside then their contractors in many cases will walk out. This happened to HMRC themselves and so they changed their mind!

2. Substitution is actually quite straightforward, even in situations requiring security badges and logins.