Fellow contractors attitutes to IR35

[Chugnut]

How clued up do you find most of your contractor colleagues with regard to IR35?

If I mention Direction and Control they mostly scratch their heads, if I mention MOO they think I'm a cow. The majority seem to think it doesn't affect them and just arrange contract insurance without seeming to have any regard of the requirements themselves.

I've refused to sign forms at a client because their wording implies employee-type relationships. Everyone else signs them regardless saying "come on, these forms will never come to light" and you can tell they think I'm just being problematic. It's tough not being a lemming; you risk potential isolation and issues with renewals ("that one's a troublemaker", etc.)

Anyone else encountered this?

[Pondlife]

Common two I've come across;

It's not relevant as my contract was under 2 years.
It's the clients problem not mine.


Ouch!

[DimPrawn]

70% "I just pay up as I'm caught and there's nothing I can do"
20% "IR35? Doesn't apply to me, I'm running a limited company".


The other 10% know what to do.

[Lockhouse]

70% "I just pay up as I'm caught and there's nothing I can do"
20% "IR35? Doesn't apply to me, I'm running a limited company".


The other 10% know what to do.

WHS

[gadgetman]

Current agency's contract was shockingly bad, not just from an IR35 standpoint.

I requested a number of changes which they had no issue with doing. I asked about this and they said no-one else had ever raised issues or requested changes for IR35 or otherwise.

There again I'm working with someone here who is in the first year of running a Ltd but has no clue about dividends, expenses, corporation tax or personal liability and the 40% bracket. I'm sure she's just treating company money as her own.

Ignorance is bliss, at least until she has to have accounts created...

[beercohol]

The noobs didnt follow the Judicial Review live reports during the trial. They didn't stand outside the high court waiting for the verdict. To us IR35 is an old concept, we should not be surprised if noobs are going to make silly mistakes.

Even for us, the 'uncertainty' has only really settled to the point where we can confidently say we are prepared to stand our ground having done all we reasonable should to protect ourselves from this evil piece of legislation.


Right... Now I am trying to find one of those smilies I can use to show a successful defense against Hector... erm... .... no.....??

[malvolio]

Interesting thought - PCG reckons its membership is also around 10% of the whole... I wonder if they're the same ones?

[Platypus]

If I mention Direction and Control they mostly scratch their heads, if I mention MOO they think I'm a cow. The majority seem to think it doesn't affect them and just arrange contract insurance without seeming to have any regard of the requirements themselves.

I've refused to sign forms at a client because their wording implies employee-type relationships. Everyone else signs them regardless saying "come on, these forms will never come to light" and you can tell they think I'm just being problematic. It's tough not being a lemming; you risk potential isolation and issues with renewals ("that one's a troublemaker", etc.)

I've often wondered if the sheep have strength in numbers. After all, HMRC can't investigate everybody. So being in denial probably makes for an easier life and in most cases just as financially rewarding too.

[Number9]

What's IR35 ?

[moorfield]

Current agency's contract was shockingly bad, not just from an IR35 standpoint.

I requested a number of changes which they had no issue with doing. I asked about this and they said no-one else had ever raised issues or requested changes for IR35 or otherwise.

That's all very well but did the pimps reflect the same changes in the upper contract (Pimp<->Client) ? Do many people even bother checking or at least asking the pimps the question ? Do many people even know that if there are differences between your contract and the upper contract that can cause problems ?