IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[Fred Bloggs]

Certainly Bechtel and BP who are reliant on contractors and a viable flexible resource pool will be paying attention. IME they are two companies who manage employees and contractors separately and properly.

As with all such things though, they are only as good as their advisors... and there seem to be an awful lot of them all of a sudden.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, a huge number of the former "regulars" on the circuit in those businesses haven't been back there since the race to the bottom started in 2014/15. Myself included. So, since day rates and hourly rates were slashed and the "regulars" generally leaving/retiring and in turn getting replaced by asian/east european guys/ladies at far lower rates, Hector may well have largely missed his chance. Food for thought if you're in the industry. Along with a great many others, I saw the writing on the wall and left. Many ex-BP/Shell etc... guys here. Presently, there's probably as many ex-Aberdeen folks here as there is back in Aberdeen still.

[WordIsBond]

Either way, it does not help get to an answer if HMRC is using its resources to chase shadows.

True. But it's one way to draw attention to the fact that HMRC is treating all contractors the same after arguing that IR35 is not a problem for those who are legitimately self-employed. They've created a huge hassle for a lot of people here and done so by acting contrary to their propaganda. It's also arguably contrary to their charter.

What was proposed accomplishes nothing on a legal / tax basis but it certainly can be a political weapon, and these people are supposed to have political masters.

[jamesbrown]

What was proposed accomplishes nothing on a legal / tax basis but it certainly can be a political weapon, and these people are supposed to have political masters.

As far as MPs are concerned, anything that involves the actual collection of tax is an operational detail. They've got more important stuff to worry about, like opinion polling.

[WordIsBond]

This is so stupid.

I've got two things going with UK clients, but they'll be done by October. I think it is time for me to just focus on overseas clients unless/until we get a government that reigns in HMRC and we get some sanity on this topic. I've got multiple people working for me, several things going on, and I've got better things to do than fight with HMRC just because my name ended up on a list somewhere from one of my clients.

I don't know if any of my UK clients will need help from me responding to Brexit but I'm unlikely to be available. Sorry. Maybe in a couple years so I don't have to worry about hassles over past contracts.

In my view, this is worse than 'IR35 Reform'. In that, at least, the client was responsible for making a reasoned determination. This is blanket 'guilty until proven innocent' behaviour without even a hint of providing the evidence to which you are supposed to respond. It's a kangaroo court. We're now a third world country, with a dictatorship, and it doesn't reside in #10.

[Invisiblehand]

Ah, thanks. Nobody then, basically.

Exactly. Yet he still insists on getting involved in anyway he can. There's a good chance he's pointing people in the direction of a well known former scheme promoter...

[webberg]

But what if its preparation for GSK giving them list of all the inside determinations pre April 2020.

It almost certainly is.

GSK will ALWAYS comply with their legal obligations. HMRC has the power to ask for lists and no doubt will.

That is inevitable and consequently playground games designed to delay and frustrate are pointless.

Better I suggest is for those who are impacted to get to their insurer/adviser, put together a good defence, (or let's be honest, decide to concede), and get that to HMRC.

I'll post some thoughts about how HMRC's campaign here will pan out.

[Fred Bloggs]

Exactly. Yet he still insists on getting involved in anyway he can. There's a good chance he's pointing people in the direction of a well known former scheme promoter...

Well, what could possibly go wrong eh?

[Fred Bloggs]

It almost certainly is.

GSK will ALWAYS comply with their legal obligations. HMRC has the power to ask for lists and no doubt will.

That is inevitable and consequently playground games designed to delay and frustrate are pointless.

Better I suggest is for those who are impacted to get to their insurer/adviser, put together a good defence, (or let's be honest, decide to concede), and get that to HMRC.

I'll post some thoughts about how HMRC's campaign here will pan out.

And GSK/other big PLCs are notoriously risk averse. Even to imagined risk. So - It amounts to "Under the bus you go, Fred".

[webberg]

To combat this eventuality, could you set up a new company and renew with the same client through that new company inside IR35 if the determination by the end client was that you were all blanket inside?

If the renewal is inside IR35, why do you need a company?

[Fred Bloggs]

If the renewal is inside IR35, why do you need a company?

Exactly. And why do we need all those insurance and advisory companies? A whole sub-industry could disappear. (Though scheme advisers such as yourself appear safe for maybe another decade or so).