IR35 - Media Scaremongering?

[cojak]

And one who really ought to be up for a CC place. Go on, you know you want to....

Never given it a thought to be honest with you Mal..

[malvolio]

Never given it a thought to be honest with you Mal..

Too late now, nominations have closed. Stick in the diary for next year!

[Clippy]

I read Kate's article in the CUK newsletter yesterday and must admit, felt a bit worried afterwards.

Upon reflection, Kate does seem to be as guilty as HMRC in terms of trying to instill fear regarding IR35.

TBH, from my limited knowledge/experience of IR35, I find it difficult to determine exactly what precautions you can take either contractually or in working practices that will mitigate any risk if you are ever investigated as the general impression is that the guidelines are ambiguous and therefore subject to (HMRC's) interpretation at the time of an audit.

Based on that, is there really anything you can do to protect yourself?

[smalldog]

there is nothing you can do to protect yourself since the government have taken to changing legislation retrospectively. You could put all the measures in place possible, only to find tomorrow, they change the rules going back in time and what was legal and within the rules this or last year, is all of a sudden rewritten to make you illegal and/or breaking the rules. There is no protection against that apart from dont work round it in the first place.

[zedAccounts]

All this "scaremongering" is a good thing in my book. It's kept me on my toes, made me read up on the subject and make sure my paperwork and working practices are outside IR35.

ZED.

[malvolio]

I read Kate's article in the CUK newsletter yesterday and must admit, felt a bit worried afterwards.

Upon reflection, Kate does seem to be as guilty as HMRC in terms of trying to instill fear regarding IR35.

TBH, from my limited knowledge/experience of IR35, I find it difficult to determine exactly what precautions you can take either contractually or in working practices that will mitigate any risk if you are ever investigated as the general impression is that the guidelines are ambiguous and therefore subject to (HMRC's) interpretation at the time of an audit.

Based on that, is there really anything you can do to protect yourself?

You should take that article with a pinch of salt. It is slightly inaccurate on several points. However you are right, the guidance is ambiguous; that's why it needs a court to decide the merits of any given case.

Don't forget, though, as I said earlier in this thread, the win/loss ratio is only bad for appealed cases, and most (but not all) of those have started off with contractors not having professioanl guidance in the original case. Down on the ground it's massively in our favour.