IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[BlueSharp]

Have these letters been addressed to to PSC or the contractor?

Thinking about this a little more is this an attempt to sort those contractors who have been organised and can mount a defence (i.e. can respond with evidence) vs those who have nothing and could become higher priority targets for further investigation as they no proof.

[Maslins]

Have these letters been addressed to to PSC or the contractor?

The couple we've seen have been addressed to the PSC, no mention of the personal name of the director/shareholder.

I do worry that this could lead to the unfair situation where two contractors did the same role, one has QDOS/IPSE/whoever on their side and scare HMRC off with a swift rebuttal, whilst the other doesn't and caves.

[northernladuk]

I do worry that this could lead to the unfair situation where two contractors did the same role, one has QDOS/IPSE/whoever on their side and scare HMRC off with a swift rebuttal, whilst the other doesn't and caves.

Well... it's a tough post but being devils advocate here. how is that unfair? One acts properly, does their diligence and pays for the correct cover, the other doesn't. What would be unfair is if QDOS/IPSE whoever take on the work from the people that haven't paid because 'we are all contractors' or something like that and these orgs spend the money from the paying clients to support those that haven't paid because 'it's not fair'.

Just putting that out there for discussion...

[ShandyDrinker]

The couple we've seen have been addressed to the PSC, no mention of the personal name of the director/shareholder.

I do worry that this could lead to the unfair situation where two contractors did the same role, one has QDOS/IPSE/whoever on their side and scare HMRC off with a swift rebuttal, whilst the other doesn't and caves.

** NLUK beat me to it! **

Why unfair? If the contractor has done their due diligence via QDOS etc then isn't that part of conducting your business affairs properly?

[DZ2]

What ladymuck says but could you also tell us what happens when you speak to Ipse. There has been lots of debate about why you need both TLC35 and IPSE+
I've got both as well so would be very interesting to see what happens now you have to opportunity to use both. Could end the discussion as to whether both is a waste of time or not.

Thanks all for support.

Regarding IPSE vs QDOS comparison: so far it seems that QDOS are taking this more seriously.

IPSE have forwarded my info to Accountax Consulting who called today. Their advice is: you can ignore the letter as it's not a formal investigation, or you can choose to respond (yourself) providing the details supporting your case, and if you wish you can also enclose the copy of CEST tool confirmation of you being outside. No offer of representation. Oh and they've offered to review my old contract for a fee...

QDOS have suggested to open the claim under my policy and will handle all the correspondence with HMRC on my behalf from now on; they have explicitly said do not respond yourself.

I'm a little disappointed with IPSE approach (but perhaps they'd be more helpful in case of a real investigation?), so I'm going to go with QDOS (hopefully they won't reject my claim).

@BlueSharp: HMRC letter is addressed to my company, not me personally.

[SussexSeagull]

I have worked with contractors who on paper were doing the same role as me but I took steps to keep myself out of IR35 through working practices and they went native. What WOULD be unfair is people who kept an eye on working practices getting lumped ion with those who tried to be teacher's pet to get another month out of the client.

[jamesbrown]

Thanks all for support.

Regarding IPSE vs QDOS comparison: so far it seems that QDOS are taking this more seriously.

IPSE have forwarded my info to Accountax Consulting who called today. Their advice is: you can ignore the letter as it's not a formal investigation, or you can choose to respond (yourself) providing the details supporting your case, and if you wish you can also enclose the copy of CEST tool confirmation of you being outside. No offer of representation. Oh and they've offered to review my old contract for a fee...

QDOS have suggested to open the claim under my policy and will handle all the correspondence with HMRC on my behalf from now on; they have explicitly said do not respond yourself.

I'm a little disappointed with IPSE approach (but perhaps they'd be more helpful in case of a real investigation?), so I'm going to go with QDOS (hopefully they won't reject my claim).

@BlueSharp: HMRC letter is addressed to my company, not me personally.

Wow, that's pretty bad. TBF to IPSE, this sounds like advice from Accountax, rather than IPSE. Accountax have a good reputation, but that is horrible advice IMHO. Any Accountax or IPSE folks care to comment?

If the above is true, and you've suggested that people could, or even should, respond themselves, your reputation is at stake...

[BlueSharp]

Thanks all for support.

Regarding IPSE vs QDOS comparison: so far it seems that QDOS are taking this more seriously.

IPSE have forwarded my info to Accountax Consulting who called today. Their advice is: you can ignore the letter as it's not a formal investigation, or you can choose to respond (yourself) providing the details supporting your case, and if you wish you can also enclose the copy of CEST tool confirmation of you being outside. No offer of representation. Oh and they've offered to review my old contract for a fee...

QDOS have suggested to open the claim under my policy and will handle all the correspondence with HMRC on my behalf from now on; they have explicitly said do not respond yourself.

I'm a little disappointed with IPSE approach (but perhaps they'd be more helpful in case of a real investigation?), so I'm going to go with QDOS (hopefully they won't reject my claim).

@BlueSharp: HMRC letter is addressed to my company, not me personally.

Thanks for the IPSE vs QUDOS information. I would of expected Accountax to have taken over so I'm surprised they have washed their hands of it.

[Maslins]

Why unfair? If the contractor has done their due diligence via QDOS etc then isn't that part of conducting your business affairs properly?

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.

[BlueSharp]

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.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Providing evidence and a solid defence allows HMRC to shut down the enquiry faster or even before it begins. Not being able to provide that information means it's worth while digging deeper, especially if the contractor does not have tax investigation insurance then there is a cost of either settling or defending the case.