So, would I be inside IR35

[Xenophon]

98% of IR35 challenges reported to the PCG are abandoned before they go to the commissioners.

That is a nice figure.

[malvolio]

Hopefully I've just delivered a knock out blow in my latest post.

No. By "Voluntary" we - not I, because I wasn't the first to say it by a long way - mean that it is largely under your own control whether or not it applies. That's becuase you can set the conditions - perhaps with a bit of a struggle, agreed - whereby it won't. If you can't be arsed to make that effort and so accept that IR35 will apply, then you have to pay it.

You can do grunt-level support work and be outside IR35, provided you have RoS and/or the right level of MoO and/or no D&C both in the contract and in reality. Of course, it might be difficutlt to acheive that, but if you don't try, you're volunteering to pay 20% extra tax for no reason.

Denny in the blue corner, and Malvolio in the red...... round 45869...

You are of course confusing me with someone who cares about Denny's opinions...

[tim123]

You can do grunt-level support work and be outside IR35, provided you have RoS and/or the right level of MoO and/or no D&C both in the contract and in reality. Of course, it might be difficutlt to acheive that, but if you don't try, you're volunteering to pay 20% extra tax for no reason.

And if you do try you could be volunteering to be out of work for 50% of the year.

tim

[beaker]

And if you do try you could be volunteering to be out of work for 50% of the year.

tim

It's up to you really!

[Denny]

You are of course confusing me with someone who cares about Denny's opinions...

Well, considering you are on the CC of the PCG and I am a paying member of the same, I would expect it to be your duty to care about the opinions of PCG members, whether those opinions are posted on the PCG forum or not. Isn't that what any lobbying group is about? Doesn't the PCG ask for the opinions of its members on the forum and through other channels to help construct its annual strategy? If that is the case, and you don't agree with that, why are you so keen to represent the PCG is some official capacity?

[malvolio]

Well, considering you are on the CC of the PCG and I am a paying member of the same, I would expect it to be your duty to care about the opinions of PCG members, whether those opinions are posted on the PCG forum or not. Isn't that what any lobbying group is about? Doesn't the PCG ask for the opinions of its members on the forum and through other channels to help construct its annual strategy? If that is the case, and you don't agree with that, why are you so keen to represent the PCG is some official capacity?

I do. You don't actually contribute to the PCG fora, so I do take your points across when appropriate, like I do with many of the discussions on here, whether from PCG members or not: I think it's important that with my PCG hat on I am aware of the concerns and occasional misconceptions of both the PCG and non-PCG world.

[hgllgh]

You can do grunt-level support work and be outside IR35, provided you have RoS and/or the right level of MoO and/or no D&C both in the contract and in reality. Of course, it might be difficutlt to acheive that, but if you don't try, you're volunteering to pay 20% extra tax for no reason.

RoS ? MoO ? D&C ?

I am a bit concerned now as I have moved into a development & support phase after designing and delivering a web application from scratch from a client supplied spec. In fact I'm not even sure if the web application is named as a deliverable on the contract I have with the agency!

All of the support work is related to the web application so would this be deemed part of the original deliverable?

[malvolio]

RoS ? MoO ? D&C ?

I am a bit concerned now as I have moved into a development & support phase after designing and delivering a web application from scratch from a client supplied spec. In fact I'm not even sure if the web application is named as a deliverable on the contract I have with the agency!

All of the support work is related to the web application so would this be deemed part of the original deliverable?

Not if you've written the contract correctly.

That's the point though, the contract should be for discrete pieces of work every time. Usually we get some f***ed-up employment contract selling your time for some fixed period for some intdeterminate purpose. If we ever get the clients and the agencies to recognise how wrong that is, we might get somewhere. All this stupid legislation from HMG to stop us working as a business is mostly because it's damn nigh impossible to demonstrate we are one.

[Denny]

Not if you've written the contract correctly.

That's the point though, the contract should be for discrete pieces of work every time. Usually we get some f***ed-up employment contract selling your time for some fixed period for some intdeterminate purpose. If we ever get the clients and the agencies to recognise how wrong that is, we might get somewhere. All this stupid legislation from HMG to stop us working as a business is mostly because it's damn nigh impossible to demonstrate we are one.

I've been banging on about this for ages on the CUK and don't actually remember you supporting me in this Mal: the importance of having a schedule of works drawn up as a list of deliverables on headed paper along with the estimated time required for delivering them. The contract should always be seen as an estimated time not a fixed period of working - whether or site or otherwise.

I did this on my last big contract through an EB for a large end client, so it's not impossible to achieve. Why hasn't no one picked on this?

In fact I'm quite dismayed that the idea of no MOO within the contract not just at the end (not having to renew) is something new the HMRC have sprung on us as a result of this case. Again, I wrote a post on this many, many months ago on CUK, the only difference being that it hadn't been tested in court at the time.

I suggest people start reading and noting my posts and not keep dismissing what I say as rambling nonsense on posts that are too long. I have a good nose for ir35 issues, far better than most, if not all on this forum, including Malvolio.

[oracleslave]

I suggest people start reading and noting my posts and not keep dismissing what I say as rambling nonsense on posts that are too long. I have a good nose for ir35 issues, far better than most, if not all on this forum, including Malvolio.

Not sure why but I have visions of Muhammed Ali shouting "I am the greatest" in front of a packed press conference"