New IR35 Guidance hot off the presses

[scooby]

In some respects, I was right earlier. Having quickly calculated as per points, IF i go and rent a room at a mates office for less than £100pm, that would total me with 20 points (10 points, PII 2, self repair 4, Billing 2, pers service 2) and therefore low risk. Evidence is easy as everything is there in contract.

Therefore once looked at, no longer touched for 3yrs. Simples. Makes you want to be investigated...

[Lockhouse]

Would have been nice if the PCG had actually done something about these business entitiy tests so that they actually meant something, instead we now have a test which is clearly designed to help HMRC direct attention at us for investigation.

I'm no PCG evangalist but I think the PCG are just as fed up as the rest of us - at least they try to do something rather than waffling about it on a forum like it's someone else's fault.

[malvolio]

Would have been nice if the PCG had actually done something about these business entitiy tests so that they actually meant something, instead we now have a test which is clearly designed to help HMRC direct attention at us for investigation.

There's a press release from the PCG just gone out. Almost all the exernal advisors to the IR35 Forum are making the point, very clearly, that what they developed and what HMRC have launched are not even vaguely similar. If we are going to have tests - a point about which I am utterly unconvinced anyway - we need them to reflect the real world. Many people, including the PCG, spent time and money on expert advice to design a set of tests and associated scoring that provided the necessary clarity. These don't; all that work was simply ignored and we have HMRC's own effort instead.

Luckily, they are voluntary. I suggest everyone simply ignores them. I will.

[Notascooby]

I've just thought of a plan B:

My new company is called "Don't get stung for IR35 ltd"

What I'll do for you, for a small fee is:

A) I will let you rent some of my office space for your company - this same office space will be rented out to multiple 1 man bands as no one will actually use it - but the office space will exist.
B) I was supply you with a contract of work, of a size of your choising but I'd suggestabout 25+% of your expected annual turnover.
C) I will allow you to invoke your right of substitution to fulfil this work by supplying you with a resource
D) I will then not pay you for this work but worry not this is part of the plan - you won't have to pay me for C because of this.
E) I will display a nice advert for your company within your office space, for a cost of £1200 - which you can offset against the loss incurred at D).

Therefore you've rented your office space, placed an advert worth £1200, hired a sub for 25% of your yearly income but failed to be paid for this despite it being invoiced up front at fixed price and delivering before time and allowing you to earn extra income.

All in, £1000 for net payout per company.

I thank you...

[backrubber]

So long as contracts have to be individually assessed for IR35, there's no hope. I have multiple clients and multiple revenue streams, but that doesn't seem to be of much use to me if I have one or two 'big' contracts that fall foul of IR35.

[Qdos Contractor]

I've just thought of a plan B:

My new company is called "Don't get stung for IR35 ltd"

What I'll do for you, for a small fee is:

A) I will let you rent some of my office space for your company - this same office space will be rented out to multiple 1 man bands as no one will actually use it - but the office space will exist.
B) I was supply you with a contract of work, of a size of your choising but I'd suggestabout 25+% of your expected annual turnover.
C) I will allow you to invoke your right of substitution to fulfil this work by supplying you with a resource
D) I will then not pay you for this work but worry not this is part of the plan - you won't have to pay me for C because of this.
E) I will display a nice advert for your company within your office space, for a cost of £1200 - which you can offset against the loss incurred at D).

Therefore you've rented your office space, placed an advert worth £1200, hired a sub for 25% of your yearly income but failed to be paid for this despite it being invoiced up front at fixed price and delivering before time and allowing you to earn extra income.

All in, £1000 for net payout per company.

I thank you...

Brilliant!

[JamJarST]

There's a press release from the PCG just gone out. Almost all the exernal advisors to the IR35 Forum are making the point, very clearly, that what they developed and what HMRC have launched are not even vaguely similar. If we are going to have tests - a point about which I am utterly unconvinced anyway - we need them to reflect the real world. Many people, including the PCG, spent time and money on expert advice to design a set of tests and associated scoring that provided the necessary clarity. These don't; all that work was simply ignored and we have HMRC's own effort instead.

Luckily, they are voluntary. I suggest everyone simply ignores them. I will.

Thanks for the info Mal, sorry PCG I was wrong

[dynamicsaxcontractor]

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.

They scored every question they know contractors will pass with 1 to 2 points and all the irrelevant ones with 10 - 35 points...... I can easy get 50 or even up to 100 points if I changed the way to run my business, but why would I other than try to pass a poxy test?

[JamJarST]

There's a press release from the PCG just gone out. Almost all the exernal advisors to the IR35 Forum are making the point, very clearly, that what they developed and what HMRC have launched are not even vaguely similar. If we are going to have tests - a point about which I am utterly unconvinced anyway - we need them to reflect the real world. Many people, including the PCG, spent time and money on expert advice to design a set of tests and associated scoring that provided the necessary clarity. These don't; all that work was simply ignored and we have HMRC's own effort instead.

Luckily, they are voluntary. I suggest everyone simply ignores them. I will.

How long do you think it will be before HMRC take refusal to complete them as a clear reason to investigate.

[bobspud]

I've just thought of a plan B:

My new company is called "Don't get stung for IR35 ltd"

What I'll do for you, for a small fee is:

A) I will let you rent some of my office space for your company - this same office space will be rented out to multiple 1 man bands as no one will actually use it - but the office space will exist.
B) I was supply you with a contract of work, of a size of your choising but I'd suggestabout 25+% of your expected annual turnover.
C) I will allow you to invoke your right of substitution to fulfil this work by supplying you with a resource
D) I will then not pay you for this work but worry not this is part of the plan - you won't have to pay me for C because of this.
E) I will display a nice advert for your company within your office space, for a cost of £1200 - which you can offset against the loss incurred at D).

Therefore you've rented your office space, placed an advert worth £1200, hired a sub for 25% of your yearly income but failed to be paid for this despite it being invoiced up front at fixed price and delivering before time and allowing you to earn extra income.

All in, £1000 for net payout per company.

I thank you...

Don't even vaguely joke about this. I know maybe a dozen small businesses that are going to scratch their heads, then go down the pub tonight and throw the car keys into the jar and play swap your offices just to comply with a stupid over weighted test...