IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[jamesbrown]

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.

Who's "he" and what is "he" suggesting? Maslins outlined a school of thought about periodically opening/closing companies for no other reason than to create an administrative break. There is that school of thought. I'm saying it doesn't work as a tax dodge; more likely, the reverse.

[JohntheBike]

Who's "he" and what is "he" suggesting? Maslins outlined a school of thought about periodically opening/closing companies for no other reason than to create an administrative break. There is that school of thought. I'm saying it doesn't work as a tax dodge; more likely, the reverse.

there were those who advocated closing their company in the early years of IR35 if the company name had any reference to IT or IT related services. This was primarily to reduce the possibility of HMRC using company names to determine a trawling exercise. I also can't see any tax related benefits though

[Fred Bloggs]

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.....

It may have been abandoned over time, but GSK had an 18 month rule. No return until 3 months had passed. May well be different now.

[Fred Bloggs]

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

I beat you to it, cojak

[Fred Bloggs]

Did you get a formal review done?

An obvious question, as an aside, in around a decade and a half as a contractor I never met anyone else other than myself in real life who had done that. The general level of ignorance and misunderstanding of actual circumstances of running a Ltd Co never ceased to amaze me.

[Hobosapien]

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

Unless operating through a brolly so already immune to any IR35 issues. Put your feet up and look forward to all the renewals likely to come your way after all the 'outside IR35' contractors run for the hills.

[sal]

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.

I don't think you will see any benefit from other people's insurance. If anything it will be the opposite. The way it's going to work most likely (given HMRC's MO) is that they will start with the "soft" targets, that like you don't have professional representation for their case and will ignore anyone who has the likes of QDOS/IPSE behind their back. Once these are done and dusted, based on the outcome they might move to rest armed with some precedents.

In it's current disjointed format IR35 is only suitable as deterrent and if the actual court cases are anything to go by, hardly enforceable. This recent development is just ramping up the threat and beefing IR35 deterrent factor.

[BlueSharp]

I don't think you will see any benefit from other people's insurance. If anything it will be the opposite. The way it's going to work most likely (given HMRC's MO) is that they will start with the "soft" targets, that like you don't have professional representation for their case and will ignore anyone who has the likes of QDOS/IPSE behind their back. Once these are done and dusted, based on the outcome they might move to rest armed with some precedents.

In it's current disjointed format IR35 is only suitable as deterrent and if the actual court cases are anything to go by, hardly enforceable. This recent development is just ramping up the threat and beefing IR35 deterrent factor.

I agree, winning the softer cases and setting precedent will help them crack the fully represented cases if they get the judgements required.

[BrilloPad]

It may have been abandoned over time, but GSK had an 18 month rule. No return until 3 months had passed. May well be different now.

Just went to lunch with a m8 who has a m8 at GSK. Reckons alot of contractors there are disguised employees who have been there for years.

But not to worry for the ones with IR35 insurance.

[Fred Bloggs]

Just went to lunch with a m8 who has a m8 at GSK. Reckons alot of contractors there are disguised employees who have been there for years.

But not to worry for the ones with IR35 insurance.

That was my experience of two separate GSK sites. To the extent I was often surprised when I found out that people in positions of some weight in the company were indeed agency workers through Kelly or SRG. Many folks were very relaxed about being a perma-tractor there. You literally couldn't tell who was staff and who wasn't. It was very normal. But, in hindsight, all the big firms I contracted at were like that to a greater or lesser degree. GSK was the most extreme perma-tractor company I had worked in though, I'd say.