IR35: Planning for April 2021 – should I stay or should I go?

[cojak]

My observation are:

• Few contracts inside IR35
• Recruiters are kicking their heels with not doing a lot of business
• Recruiters are not putting rates/salary's on adds
• Companies HR departments recruiting again (Employing Direct)
• Price offered for roles are pretty low
• One off relocation fees offered, usually 5k
• Jobs come with conditions, i.e. 9 to 5, five days a week, and no remote work.

I closed my ltd company and now looking for something local, prepared at 43 to take low wage to get into something new.

Does anyone know if there is an official method of submitting feedback to the gov?

What kind of feedback to what part of government?

[IR35 Lol]

My observation are:

• Few contracts inside IR35
• Recruiters are kicking their heels with not doing a lot of business
• Recruiters are not putting rates/salary's on adds
• Companies HR departments recruiting again (Employing Direct)
• Price offered for roles are pretty low
• One off relocation fees offered, usually 5k
• Jobs come with conditions, i.e. 9 to 5, five days a week, and no remote work.

I closed my ltd company and now looking for something local, prepared at 43 to take low wage to get into something new.

Does anyone know if there is an official method of submitting feedback to the gov?

[quantum77]

BlasterBates and jamesbrown - thanks for the detailed debate. There's lot of info in there for me to digest.

I think at this point in time I'm going to finish with the client, and ask my contractor friend if he wishes to assist them alone.

[BlasterBates]

Why are you struggling with this basic idea that clauses about subcontracting, assignment and substitution don't necessarily flow down?

Regardless, it's the relationship with the end client that matters, not some contractual words or the number of intermediaries.

I didn't say that they did.

[BlasterBates]

Only if the subcontracting clause was originally valid and not a fig leaf which wasn't supposed to be actually used

Thats true but the contractor in question is asking whether he should subcontract for his colleague, so in this case the clause would indeed be valid. In fact a clause isn't necessary because subcontracting would be an undeniable fact. He's simply worried if his colleague gets caught for IR35 HMRC would then go after the subcontractor, but my argument is the very fact that there is a subcontractor would be such a strong pointer outside IR35 an investigation would go no further.

[jamesbrown]

This would assume that the contractor would be under the same working practices. However moving from a contract which allows subcontracting to one that doesn't is a substantial change in working practices.

Who said it allowed subcontracting? Quantum77 did not say that. Quantum77 said they would be subcontracting work from their mate. My emphasis.

contractor friend of mine is looking for work and asked if he could take the contract with them post April, and sub some of the work to me.

Why are you struggling with this basic idea that clauses about subcontracting, assignment and substitution don't necessarily flow down?

Regardless, it's the relationship with the end client that matters, not some contractual words or the number of intermediaries.

[eek]

This would assume that the contractor would be under the same working practices. However moving from a contract which allows subcontracting to one that doesn't is a substantial change in working practices.

Only if the subcontracting clause was originally valid and not a fig leaf which wasn't supposed to be actually used

[BlasterBates]

As quantum77 said, the client is “IR35 clueless”. Quantum77 asked “am I worrying over nothing”. The correct answer is “no”. Best case scenario, the client simply bans PSCs, as you say, but if they don’t and instead issue SDSs, then there is a paper trail. Regardless, quantum77 is not worrying over nothing and should probably look to move on from this client, just as you might if working with exactly the same intermediaries as before. Adding an intermediary makes zero difference because, er, that’s the point of the intermediaries legislation. It’s the working practices that matter.

This would assume that the contractor would be under the same working practices. However moving from a contract which allows subcontracting to one that doesn't is a substantial change in working practices.

[jamesbrown]

As quantum77 said, the client is “IR35 clueless”. Quantum77 asked “am I worrying over nothing”. The correct answer is “no”. Best case scenario, the client simply bans PSCs, as you say, but if they don’t and instead issue SDSs, then there is a paper trail. Regardless, quantum77 is not worrying over nothing and should probably look to move on from this client, just as you might if working with exactly the same intermediaries as before. Adding an intermediary makes zero difference because, er, that’s the point of the intermediaries legislation. It’s the working practices that matter.

[BlasterBates]

I am not saying they are at an elevated risk by being a subcontractor. I am saying that your argument of the opposite is wrong and that being a subcontractor affords no additional protection. The risk they face is from the client deeming that the working practices adopted currently are inside and that there has been no change in those working practices. In short, the risk is that, under investigation for old work, the client would sink quantum77. That is a real risk, even if the actual risk of investigation remains low.

As you well know companies don't issue negative SDSs they simply say they don't work with PSCs anymore, at that point the subcontracting is no longer possible and Quantum77 moves on. HMRC have stated they've no intention of checking on contractors specifically because they've moved inside IR35 so the risk is very low.