Legal action / Mislead contract was outside IR35

[cyborg1337]

You should've known that you looked like a client permie way before that.



Refuse, which ends in one of two ways.



Refuse, which ends in one of two ways.



Pushback, which ends in one of two ways.

You see the pattern here?

Yeah, so I did that and my contract got ended But what a waste a time and resources for everyone!

[eek]

I'll give you guys a few examples.

1. You finish your contract and they put a perm in your place. That's something you would only know right at the very end.

2. You work from where you want to, nobody says anything; People change, many many months later your are challenged over this.

3. You're encouraged to do ad-hoc work which is outside of the agreed initial agreed deliverables.

4. A year in someone new tries to become your manager.

1. irrelevant unless there was another permie doing the same job at the same time. Even if you replaced a permanent person as you arrived and were fired as the replacement as found it's possible to argue it was an outside contract provided you do things correctly..

2. irrelevant until the challenge comes.

3. That's just stupid.

4. you had a manager and didn't think you were inside.

Those aren't examples for anything except further evidence that you don't seem to understand the old (prior to April 2020) rules of the game..

[Lance]

I didn't determine this to be outside. I was told this is outside IR35 by the agency (the paperwork was also reviewed professionally and deemed to be outside).

However in actual practice my treatment has been very much inside. So I see this as quite dishonest from the suppliers part.

i want to flag this to HMRC and I want to take legal action against the supplier for misleading.

‘Supplier’?
You’re the supplier.

If you cause them trouble you will end up in a world of pain. This is very much your problem, not theirs. Forget it and move on..

[jamesbrown]

Yeah, so I did that and my contract got ended But what a waste a time and resources for everyone!

After a year?

It should've become clear to you after a couple of weeks whether the contract reflected reality. Either it did or it didn't. If the reality of the WPs only stopped reflecting the contract after a year, fine, but then we wouldn't still be having this discussion. Your contract would've moved from outside to inside and you would have the evidence for that and you wouldn't be looking back over your contract with hindsight and worrying, knowing that you were inside all along.

Is there anything else to discuss here? Seems like you admit the back taxes need to be paid. I wouldn't bother trying to sue the agent for material breach, but that's your call (and money).

[cyborg1337]

1. irrelevant unless there was another permie doing the same job at the same time. Even if you replaced a permanent person as you arrived and were fired as the replacement as found it's possible to argue it was an outside contract provided you do things correctly..

2. irrelevant until the challenge comes.

3. That's just stupid.

4. you had a manager and didn't think you were inside.

Those aren't examples for anything except further evidence that you don't seem to understand the old (prior to April 2020) rules of the game..

1. That's a grey area.

2. Exactly, until the time comes!

3. Not really.

4. I never had a manger, he tried to act like my manager (very late in the contract).

When I pushed back I got my contract ended.

But can you guys see how you can be in a place for a while without much problem and then things get sh*t near the end.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

I'll give you guys a few examples.

1. You finish your contract and they put a perm in your place or vice versa.

2. You work from where you want to, nobody says anything; People change, many, many months later your are challenged over this.

3. You're encouraged to do ad-hoc work which is outside of the agreed initial agreed deliverables.

4. A year in someone new tries to become your manager.

You seem to have missed my point. What contract did you sign that the end client was a party to?

[eek]

After a year?

It should've become clear to you after a couple of weeks whether the contract reflected reality. Either it did or it didn't. If the reality of the WPs only stopped reflecting the contract after a year, fine, but then we wouldn't still be having this discussion. Your contract would've moved from outside to inside and you would have the evidence for that and you wouldn't be looking back over your contract with hindsight and worrying, knowing that you were inside all along.

Is there anything else to discuss here? Seems like you admit the back taxes need to be paid. I wouldn't bother trying to sue the agent for material breach, but that's your call (and money).

All I've seen here is reasons why Rishi Sunak is correct in his statement last night - the old approach wasn't working and a lot of people (including the OP) were abusing the rules https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...r-changes.html

[eek]

1. That's a grey area.

2. Exactly, until the time comes!

3. Not really.

4. I never had a manger, he tried to act like my manager (very late in the contract).

When I pushed back I got my contract ended.

But can you guys see how you can be in a place for a while without much problem and then things get sh*t near the end.

No - all I'm seeing is reasons why contractors should never have been allowed to make the decision as to whether a contract is inside or outside IR35.

Oh and a pile of reasons why most companies are blanketing everything as inside IR35 as they can't trust their own staff not to screw things up and drag people inside with the help of less clueful contractors...

[jamesbrown]

All I've seen here is reasons why Rishi Sunak is correct in his statement last night - the old approach wasn't working and a lot of people (including the OP) were abusing the rules https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...r-changes.html

Mostly the abuse is just ignorance. I have nothing against contractors paying more tax as a policy decision (I would prefer to pay less, but hey ho, this is a democracy ). However, IR35 has always been a thick-as-mince UK solution to an international problem with much better solutions. It's been central to a whole host of disasters in recent years, such as tax avoidance schemes/loan charge, legislative uncertainty, permietractoring as a viable thing etc. We either need strict deeming criteria, which is the standard approach in most other jurisdictions, or we need to align taxes on earned and unearned income, at least for close company owner directors (aka "look through"). This is all blindingly obvious.

[cyborg1337]

No - all I'm seeing is reasons why contractors should never have been allowed to make the decision as to whether a contract is inside or outside IR35.

Oh and a pile of reasons why most companies are blanketing everything as inside IR35 as they can't trust their own staff not to screw things up and drag people inside with the help of less clueful contractors...

I feel like you get my point; but won't admit. No hard feelings.

I'm prepared to own and pay for my mistakes, it just bothers me that companies get away so easily (well let's see what happens).