New IR35 Guidance hot off the presses

[NickNick]

Precisely. However, investing £220 in PCG Plus would have covered that loss, no questions asked. So which is the better pointer towards behaving like a business and protecting the bottom line?

These Victim Tests are meaningless drivel.

I guess it would have covered the costs, but still, the losses were made, 10 points scored. :O)

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

This is my earlier point... Culture needs to change and Agencies need us and therefore need to change to help us...

Definitely BUT the agencies also need to persuade the end clients to change as well and that's where the ROS usually falls down

[scooby]

Definitely BUT the agencies also need to persuade the end clients to change as well and that's where the ROS usually falls down

EXACTLY... E2E culture change.

Clients will change if the skillset and interim resource start to step back and not be available, or even charge more to cover the IR35 risk...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

EXACTLY... E2E culture change.

Clients will change if the skillset and interim resource start to step back and not be available, or even charge more to cover the IR35 risk...

Yep I think you're right Scooby, that's the way that things need to go but I reckon it could be a long process

[scooby]

Yep I think you're right Scooby, that's the way that things need to go but I reckon it could be a long process

No change happens overnight, it's usually a reaction to an event... That event may not be far off.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

No change happens overnight, it's usually a reaction to an event... That event may not be far off.

you mean?

[vince14]

It's palpable nonsense. The 'test' is so heavily weighed in favour of placing people within IR35 that I don't think it would stand up under any sort of judicial review. It's like saying 'Peter and Paul were robbed. Did you rob Peter? - 'No, Mr. Policeman' - 'Oh, then in that case you must have robbed Paul'.

2 points for naming substitutes or having PII, nothing for the substantial financial risks involved in contracting, but 10 points for having a client default on a payment to you? What planet are they living on?

I love the bit about the HMRC 'helpline', and how they will not pass on information to anyone else. Really HMRC? Can you prove that the 'Helpdesk Advisers' and 'Compliance Teams' never talk to each other, even in the staff canteen? I feel an FOI request coming on...

I think this changes nothing. I'm going to ignore it and carry on paying £220 a year to PCG.

[scooby]

you mean?

Would +rep for that, but need to spread it around...

[JamJarST]

It's palpable nonsense. The 'test' is so heavily weighed in favour of placing people within IR35 that I don't think it would stand up under any sort of judicial review. It's like saying 'Peter and Paul were robbed. Did you rob Peter? - 'No, Mr. Policeman' - 'Oh, then in that case you must have robbed Paul'.

2 points for naming substitutes or having PII, nothing for the substantial financial risks involved in contracting, but 10 points for having a client default on a payment to you? What planet are they living on?

I love the bit about the HMRC 'helpline', and how they will not pass on information to anyone else. Really HMRC? Can you prove that the 'Helpdesk Advisers' and 'Compliance Teams' never talk to each other, even in the staff canteen? I feel an FOI request coming on...

I think this changes nothing. I'm going to ignore it and carry on paying £220 a year to PCG.

The test doesn't determine whether you are inside IR35 though does it. What it does is highlight whether you should expect an investigation.

[meanttobeworking]

Sorry if I've missed something but...

To quote the guidance document (page 10), after defining the three risk bands, they say:

---

If we think that IR35 may apply to you, we will write to you and ask you whether you have thought about IR35.

If you tell us that you think you are outside IR35, we will ask you for evidence.

The IR35 Forum has helped us to draw up a set of ‘business entity’ tests. These tests will help you to work out which risk band you are in. You will find them in Chapter 4.

If you prove to our satisfaction that you are outside IR35 or in the ‘low risk’ band, then we will close our IR35 review.

---

So given that the tests are not compulsory, and we are not obliged to share the results of the test with HMRC even if we do take it, what will trigger their thinking 'that IR35 will apply to us'?

Also note that the final paragraph says that you have to prove you are in 'low risk' OR that you are outside IR35 - so surely regardless of test result and risk banding, if you have MOO/ROS/Lack of control by client, you should still be able to prove that you're outside - especially with the help of the example scenarios they've provided?

Am I missing something (other than HMRC's tendency to do what they like rather than what they write)?