IR35 - HMRC's View

[AnthonyQuinn]

Just throught I would get some views. HMRC's view in IR35 cases is just that, their view. This could be challenged in court surely??

So why do we have many experts answering IR35 queries with 'HMRC could take the view that ....'. Of course they could take any view. They are another party to this dispute. We should be following the law rather than HMRC's view, surely?

Or, am I wrong?

[Coalman]

Only if the law is clear and precise and not left deliberately vague ...

[BolshieBastard]

Just throught I would get some views. HMRC's view in IR35 cases is just that, their view. This could be challenged in court surely??

So why do we have many experts answering IR35 queries with 'HMRC could take the view that ....'. Of course they could take any view. They are another party to this dispute. We should be following the law rather than HMRC's view, surely?

Or, am I wrong?

You could appeal any decision to the Tax tribunal \ tax Commissioners or whatever they are called. But dont forget, although they are supposed to be independent, can you actually be sure they are?

In any event, HMRC use a whole raft of wideboy tactics. Its not the contract, its the actual working relationship. Oh, until that looks like they are pissing in the wind when its what's in the contract.

and if that doesnt catch you out, its what the client's HR and other Personnel staff 'say' how the actual relationship works.

[bobspud]

and if that doesnt catch you out, its what the client's HR and other Personnel staff 'say' how the actual relationship works.

Its worth noting that most employees really dont care what the relationship is.
A collegue on an old site got put through a three year investigation because a few people answered a fising inquiry from hector with their personal opinions instead of following the signed off procedure. The procedure was "Say nothing and send the inquiry to the legal team who actually understood what would happen if they got the answers wrong. They in turn would have collected the information and return it to HMRC in the correct format and copied the contractors solicitor"

He got lucky after he pointed out to the legal team that their own guys had just gone off on their own and painted enough of a dim picture to hang everyone involved...

The legal team very kindly sent hector and the contactor a letter stating that none of the managers in question had the authority to represent their personal opinions in the matter. together with a "revised list" of replies that actually reflected the facts.

The managers and HR were then re-trained not to make the same mistake again

The interesting point was that the legal team had hung their own permies out to dry, So if hector had persued the case the contractor could have gone
all out to recover full costs as they had failed to follow the processes

[Wanderer]

A collegue on an old site got put through a three year investigation because a few people answered a fising inquiry from hector with their personal opinions instead of following the signed off procedure.

Did you mean a fisting inquiry?

Interesting to hear the companies take on it. I've always thought it to be odd that the inland revenge would approach "random" individuals like this and take their word on your employment status over a written contract, especially on a matter where 10s of thousands of pounds are at stake. But then, they would, wouldn't they.

As you say - the client should refer to Legal who would come out with guns blazing. The last thing a client wants is the Inland Revenge to declare one of their contractors to be "disguised employee" then announce that they owe Hector a bomb of money in Employers NI because you've done a runner or something. (Might not be true but it would rattle them enough to get their legal team to spring to your defence and they have certainly threatened such things).

Of course, the Agency is the meat in the sandwich here too and Hector could theoretically come after them if you were declared to be a disguised employee. Surely the logical conclusion to this would be that Agencies would do their utmost to word the contracts to be outsite IR35 to minimise their risk rather than trying stupid tricks on us all the time. Would be nice if it actually happened.

[malvolio]

Just as a matter of interest, anyone seen this?
http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?...ws&Itemid=1053

Fingers crossed they actually deliver what they say they will...

[The Wikir Man]

Just as a matter of interest, anyone seen this?
http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?...ws&Itemid=1053

Fingers crossed they actually deliver what they say they will...

Well, all they have said is that IF they get into power, they will look at IR35.

Not much of a commitment, to be honest, IMO.

[expat]

Of course, the Agency is the tulip in the tulip sandwich here too and Hector could theoretically come after them if you were declared to be a disguised employee. Surely the logical conclusion to this would be that Agencies would do their utmost to word the contracts to be outsite IR35 to minimise their risk rather than trying stupid tricks on us all the time. Would be nice if it actually happened.

FTFY

[malvolio]

Well, all they have said is that IF they get into power, they will look at IR35.

Not much of a commitment, to be honest, IMO.

You don't know the history! However, while it remains a promise that may never be delivered, it is still a major step to get agreement at this level that something needs to be done. All we have to do is pray for a tory win...

[Tarquin Farquhar]

You don't know the history! However, while it remains a promise that may never be delivered, it is still a major step to get agreement at this level that something needs to be done. All we have to do is pray for a tory win...

Except for those of us who think that you lot ought to pay the correct and fair amount of tax.