IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[Bernadette2you]

I'm one of these (ex)GSK contractors who received HMRC letter. Thanks god I have QDOS insurance (after reading lots of useful advice on this forum when I started contracting. I anyone has any doubts why pay for it, this is why!). QDOS told me to fill in claims form so doing it right now and I'll let them handle it. I'm also IPSE+ member but not had a chance to speak to them, will give them a call tomorrow.

Worst come to worst... just imagine us (1500?) GSK contractors suing GSK for holiday pay and pension... bet GSK can't wait.

Exactly. We don't get paid for holiday or sick pay, we have a longer shut down over Christmas than the permies this year, there are many benefits we don't get - and why should we have to pay employer NI if this contract we hold means we are employees? Surely GSK should pay that?

[Bernadette2you]

I agree, but was thinking from HMRC's perspective. Ie the primary argument for IR35 is that two people doing the same role should pay the same taxes. If HMRC shy away from those well protected whilst hounding those who aren't goes against what they claim their goal is.

If everything else is the same, one party paying for an insurance whilst another doesn't shouldn't be the legitimate argument for one being inside IR35, the other outside.

As someone who hasn't paid for insurance (and yes - I'm stupid for not doing so, but honestly thought that as my contract is, imho IR35 compliant, insurance was not required. I didn't look in to it anywhere near enough and have fallen victim to myths told to me by agencies - I've only just started contracting after doing inhouse project work for years, so too complacent ) I do see your point, in that those that have the insurance may convince HMRC that all our contracts are IR35 compliant. What the HMRC can't do (not that they won't!) is use one rule for some contractors and another for others. So we may well end up gaining from those that have taken insurance, but we may not, and I certainly don't feel safe at the moment.

I will be getting insurance looking forwards, because if I'd have had this letter, and be the only contractor I know of having received it, then I would definitely need help in answering the letter, so insurance would be a Godsend.

Good Luck to all that have received this letter - whether they have insurance or not - I can see this dragging out for some time.

[Bernadette2you]

Just a thought. If HMRC have a list of all PSCs working outside now they'll have a perfect baseline for comparing any inside determinations GSK make approaching April 2020.

If GSK make any inside determination on a contractor that's got that letter they'll be effectively screwing the contractors. HMRC thinks it should be inside and GSK confirm it.

It'll be like mana from heaven for them won't it. How can they not come after the contractor with that information?

Strikes me that the real problem for GSK contractors is not now, it's when the determinations come out.

Thoughts?

Exactly! That is where my energies are currently focussed. WHAT is GSK going to do in answer to HMRC's questions to them with April 2020 looming? GSK are already locked in to discussions on this as I've been asked by some managers there my thoughts (even before these letters were sent out). It seems that GSK, from April 2020 are tempted to go down the 'everyone is caught' route but are trying to work out whether they'd keep enough contractors if they do.

[BlueSharp]

Exactly! That is where my energies are currently focussed. WHAT is GSK going to do in answer to HMRC's questions to them with April 2020 looming? GSK are already locked in to discussions on this as I've been asked by some managers there my thoughts (even before these letters were sent out). It seems that GSK, from April 2020 are tempted to go down the 'everyone is caught' route but are trying to work out whether they'd keep enough contractors if they do.

I hope some groups are going to go down the Employment Tribunal route if they get thrown under the bus by GSK.

[Paralytic]

I hope some groups are going to go down the Employment Tribunal route if they get thrown under the bus by GSK.

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that before!

[cojak]

I'd be handing in my notice of termination and getting out asap.

[BrilloPad]

I hope some groups are going to go down the Employment Tribunal route if they get thrown under the bus by GSK.

That is what 2 "contractors" did at JPM. Caused JPM to introduce the 2 year, 3 year and 10 year rules.

I do wonder what JPM are doing re 2020 changes. Though I doubt they have many contractors left.....

[mudskipper]

.. but honestly thought that as my contract is, imho IR35 compliant

Did you get a formal review done?

[northernladuk]

I'd be handing in my notice of termination and getting out asap.

Most definitely this. Particularly if you've got a couple of years under your belt.

Either that or I'd be asking around if any contractors are on the bench and want to substitute for you. Get's you out and a very large tick in your defense box.

Where is GSK IT based?

[WordIsBond]

OTOH, if there were to be a successful transfer of debt, it would be more likely to happen when it appears that the contractor were precisely motivated by that chicanery. Personally, I think regularly opening/closing companies is not a good look, creates some additional risks (by creating an event/hook for inspection, as a minimum) and mitigates none (for anyone reading that might be considering it).

There can be lots of reasons for starting a new company. I'm sure anyone doing this would be smart enough to come up with a reason other than IR35 for what they've done.

That might get harder if you did it every six months, but that's not what he suggested.