New PCG IR35 Questionnaire

[MyUserName]

I got medium risk!

[northernladuk]

So, how can you be outside IR35 and not a genuine business?

You should know the answer to that. Look at the questions we get on here constantly spoon feeding people answers to IR35 quesitons when they don't have a clue how their finances work, their situation regard clients/agents who to ask for what. That is someone who is contractually out of IR35 but is not a business.

[malvolio]

You should know the answer to that. Look at the questions we get on here constantly spoon feeding people answers to IR35 quesitons when they don't have a clue how their finances work, their situation regard clients/agents who to ask for what. That is someone who is contractually out of IR35 but is not a business.

Precisely. And something I've been banging on about for at least the six years I've been haunting these boards.

[runes]

I think you are missing the point here Runes. When Kate refers to case law she means the individual tax tribunals that have formed the legal precedents for determining status under IR35 - just because there have not been that many cases that have gone to tribunal it doesn't mean that the majority of contractors would be outside IR35.

I think that's exactly the point. Statistically (by case law) most are not caught - this should be reflected in the tests as a "Low Risk" rating - otherwise what's the point in it as an assessment? So my question stands: if Kate had a role in constructing the scoring, there must have been an "objective" - so what was the intended target "percentage" that would appear as "Low Risk"?

[amcdonald]

But the tests aren't about IR35, they are about "Are you a genuine business". Big difference.

But a genuine business would carefully target it's advertising to spend the minimum it needed to be effective, and would minimise it's bad debts

Hector pretends to think the opposite, but they wouldn't count permies of Capita etc as permies of their end clients

They only do with us because we're an easy target for stealth taxes, it has nothing to doing with being a genuine business

[Mr.Whippy]

Medium risk here also.

[northernladuk]

They only do with us because we're an easy target for stealth taxes, it has nothing to doing with being a genuine business

What a load of crap. We exploit a loop hole and it is quite obvious to HMRC that most people exploiting this loophole haven't a clue why or how it is supposed to work so they are quite rightly trying to clamp down. Nothing to do with stealth taxes.. Jesus...

[amcdonald]

What a load of crap. We exploit a loop hole and it is quite obvious to HMRC that most people exploiting this loophole haven't a clue why or how it is supposed to work so they are quite rightly trying to clamp down. Nothing to do with stealth taxes.. Jesus...

Using your personal allowance is tax avoidance, if you use that you're exploting a loop hole in the system

That's a straw man argument, there's little in the tax system that isn't a loophole

[northernladuk]

Using your personal allowance is tax avoidance, if you use that you're exploting a loop hole in the system

That's a straw man argument, there's little in the tax system that isn't a loophole

If you are running a proper business you are using tried and tested processes for business's. It should work for any business from 1 man up to corporate level. The only time it becomes avoidance/loop home is when you are trying to use it and not running a proper business, something HMRC are trying to pick up on obviously.

[Kate Cottrell]

I think that's exactly the point. Statistically (by case law) most are not caught - this should be reflected in the tests as a "Low Risk" rating - otherwise what's the point in it as an assessment? So my question stands: if Kate had a role in constructing the scoring, there must have been an "objective" - so what was the intended target "percentage" that would appear as "Low Risk"?

Hello again Runes
By case law I mean actual cases that have gone before the tribunals (previously the Commissioners) and the Courts and you will know that HMRC has won more cases than taxpayers. For me the scoring and the tests need to relate to how the tribunals and courts view the issues e.g. minor or major pointers to disguised employment or self-employment. You cannot deal with any of this by having some kind of % objective. The only objective, when the law has NOT changed, can only be one that fits with the law. The measuring comes later in the test and learn phase.
Kate Cottrell