Got a contract that's clearly 'inside' - what would you do?

[Wanderer]

"Oh do you want the IR35 friendly version instead?"

Oh, go on then if you must.

some agencies maintain IR35 unfriendly versions of the contract

WTF? I'm not doubting you, but I really don't get it. Can someone explain why on earth they would do this???

Maybe they WANT the HMRC to have a look at the contract and decide that they were really an employee of the agency and thus, the agency is liable for PAYE and NICs when the contractor does a bunk? Maybe they are just stupid. I really don't know...

[Support Monkey]

Got a contract that's clearly 'inside' - what would you do?

Get it checked by a professional before jumping to conclusions

[Jog On]

My guess as to why the 'default' contract id the inside one is that they probably don't want substitution clauses and D&C clauses if they can avoid them. The ease at which they swapped out for the outside one makes me wonder about the contract between the end client and the agency.. another stumbling block there.

Stupid stupid stupid legislation - the sooner they simplify it and make it fairer the better

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

An excellent point from Mal that always seems to get forgotten here. People get over eager to have their contract re-worded but if it doesn't accurately reflect what happens at site it won't be worth the paper it is written on come a review.

I think this only works the other way around, if you have an IR35 friendly contract they will look at your working practices and try to make it you are inside. If you have a contract clearly caught by the IR35 I don't think they will bother looking at your working practices to see if you are outside - which means you have to prove you are outside instead of them proving you are inside.....