Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
I've asserted in another place that blanket determinations are unlawful, but I cannot find the specific reference to support that assertion. Can anyone point me in the right direction for that supporting evidence?
Thanks.
From what I read, there aren't that many ClientCos that make actual blanket determination. Most of the big names are simply stating they are not going to engage with ltd. contractors - only Umbrella, which is in their right.
To me, unlawful is akin to illegal. Wherein you could sue a company for making a blanket determination by assessing all BAs, for example, as being inside. However, if the company could prove that the role of a BA doesn't materially change and it's just the project that changes, then surely that's acceptable.
It's not great, but I would challenge that a well considered blanket determination is lawful, no matter what Chaplin says.
To me, unlawful is akin to illegal. Wherein you could sue a company for making a blanket determination by assessing all BAs, for example, as being inside. However, if the company could prove that the role of a BA doesn't materially change and it's just the project that changes, then surely that's acceptable.
It's not great, but I would challenge that a well considered blanket determination is lawful, no matter what Chaplin says.
Agreed; as would I. It all comes down to the nuance of the case in play... but I'll be playing up the "illegality" for the time being.
From what I read, there aren't that many ClientCos that make actual blanket determination. Most of the big names are simply stating they are not going to engage with ltd. contractors - only Umbrella, which is in their right.
That to me is the easiest way around the ambiguity in the documents HMRC have issued to date. It's then policy and not a determination. I suspect the legislation was written that way to encourage this behaviour.
That to me is the easiest way around the ambiguity in the documents HMRC have issued to date. It's then policy and not a determination. I suspect the legislation was written that way to encourage this behaviour.
Agreed. And I have been saying as much for years. One of my many disappointments with IPSE was that they disregarded this view almost entirely IMHO.
The draft legislation requires “reasonable care” in formulating an SDS. This is a legal concept and a blanket determination would likely fail unless all contractors at that ClientCo were clones. Absent reasonable care, the client becomes the Fee Payer.
To me, unlawful is akin to illegal. Wherein you could sue a company for making a blanket determination by assessing all BAs, for example, as being inside. However, if the company could prove that the role of a BA doesn't materially change and it's just the project that changes, then surely that's acceptable.
It's not great, but I would challenge that a well considered blanket determination is lawful, no matter what Chaplin says.
Nope.
Illegal means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed.
Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed.
Comment