I was wondering if it's at all possible to justify to HMRC that you're outside of IR35 if you're on a project that you had to get DV security clearance for?
-
And on the eighth day God said, "Okay, Murphy, you're in charge!" -
Of course - having to comply with security measures doesn't mean you're totally controlled in how you do what you do, as long as the control you're under applies to everyone and there's reasons for it.
You could also argue outside if you're able to substitute, even if your pool of substitutes is reduced due to them needing to be cleared too.
It's worth chatting through the situation with an expert so they can assess the level of control in regard to How, Where and When. -
Of course you can. The DV is a client imposed restriction based on other legal requirements so cannot be classed as client direction and control. It doesn't affect how you work on site. Once you are in then the normal rules of IR35 apply on how you work.
Substitution will be a very grey area but you can demonstrate that given some very strict controls it could still be offered. If the client can't take him due to the restrictions based on DV I don't think that would invalidate it. Just try and word it that if the substitute meets client conditions then it is allowed. The reality of substituting DV is probably very different but it is still offered showing you are a business not a permie.
I would suggest you read up on IR35 and understand it a little more though.....
EDIT : Damn, beaten to it so what Craig said....'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
Comment
-
I appreciate I'm not an IR35 guru, but it seems to me that it's just a fudge to say I have a wording in a contract. If Hector looked at it, I'd be very surprised if the wording belied the actuality of the contract and with all the recent blather about "spirit of the law" and "aggressive" tax avoidance I'd be tempted to hedge my bets on the side of being within IR35.Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
Still, as I said, I'm no guru!And on the eighth day God said, "Okay, Murphy, you're in charge!"Comment
-
You are correct, the contract has to reflect the working practices to stand up. In reality you could argue sub clauses won't work in most cases as in the JLJ case but that can only be tested at the time it is invoked. It would wrong for a court to judge it invalid just on it's hunch that it might not work.. Now if your client then stands up and says he would never have taken a sub then you are in trouble.Originally posted by manclarky View Post
Looks like you have you answer then...and with all the recent blather about "spirit of the law" and "aggressive" tax avoidance I'd be tempted to hedge my bets on the side of being within IR35.
Still, as I said, I'm no guru!Last edited by northernladuk; 28 March 2012, 11:20.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
As long as you aren't the only DV cleared person in the country with those skills and the rest of your working practises fall outside IR35 then you don't have a problem.Originally posted by manclarky View Post"You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
...or looking at it another way.
HMRC: Can you describe your working relationship with Contractor A.
DV cleared site: No. It is classified.
*case closed*And the lord said unto John; "come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.Comment
-
'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
If only it was that easy. Unfortunately Hector does have cleared people..Originally posted by b0redom View PostComment
-
Ah, course....shame that!Originally posted by Mr.Whippy View PostAnd on the eighth day God said, "Okay, Murphy, you're in charge!"Comment
Comment