Roger Sinclair (Egos) on New HMRC IR35 guidance

[BlasterBates]

They may have but that's not how to use them. If you can engineer a genuine Low Risk score, then give the evidence to HMRC and they will leave you alone for three years. If you can't - and most of us won't be able to - then say nothing and rely on the usual protections.

And you don't do anything anyway until HMRC tells you there is an investigation being opened.

It's not about engineering a low score, its about engineering the way you work with the client. Lets say you rent an office and spend a few hours a week, that's not a scam, that's a change to the way you're working with the client. Quite evidently a judge would be helped in his decision that your working independently because at least part of your work would be in your own office (Lime IT vs Justin).

Take the case of Usetech vs Young the contractor there had the same contract for several years, the judge decided that the first 3 years he was outside IR35 and the rest of it was inside IR35. This means a contractor woke up one morning worked more or less as he did the day before but overnight had "become" a disguised employee, i.e a subjective decision had to be made.

In other words subtle changes in the way you work can mean the difference between being outside or inside; so should you go ahead and have your company logo on your letters, spend a bit on advertising and have a website even though you don't need one.....absolutely.

Forget rational IT design thought processes....think legal beagle. You're in a different world. I remember in a seminar a while back someone saying your chances of being judged not guilty has more to do with the consistency of your case than anything else. If you are innocent but your story doesn't add up you're more likely to be convicted. That's why there is a relationship between getting off the hook and how much you spend on a lawyer (which of course supports the case of having insurance and getting good representation).

Listen to the case for the prosecution and you don't defend yourself or get a cheap lawyer you'll be found guilty, because in the end the facts don't speak for themselves, as we would all like to believe.

Forget innocent vs guilty....think winning your case.

[GillsMan]

My accountant and I were having a bit of a chuckle about the HMRC tests, when he came out with this corker:

They should look closer to home after all of these reports of HMRC’s own staff using limited companies and ignoring IR35!

Not heard that one, but it really wouldn't surprise me!

[malvolio]

My accountant and I were having a bit of a chuckle about the HMRC tests, when he came out with this corker:



Not heard that one, but it really wouldn't surprise me!

KUATB. That's why Danny Alexander's demadning an investigation into hiring practices across the Civil Service and all this sudden focus on wealthy contractors only paying 20% income tax when everyone else has to pay 40%... Can I suggest a Google for Lester at SLC.

[BlasterBates]

My accountant and I were having a bit of a chuckle about the HMRC tests, when he came out with this corker:



Not heard that one, but it really wouldn't surprise me!

Yes but they would have their own premises, and probably fixed price contracts, so all above board.

[Raxme]

"You don't get it"

Roger's postings and some replies in Another Place make reference to the fact that these "risk" ratings are not about your (the contractor's) risk - they are about HMRC's risk of missing a payday.

Did anyone think it was going to be anything else? Well, yes, I had hopes, but not high hopes; this is HMRC after all.

It works like this: if you get 20 points or more and can provide the evidence, then you are more than likely a waste of their time.

End of.

Simples!

[Raxme]

So we won't chase the companies we already aren't chasing and will continue to chase the ones we already are. Which kind of defeats the objective.

One needs to ask: whose objective?

Why did anyone think it would be the Contractor's objective?

[/hindsight]

[TheFaQQer]

KUATB. That's why Danny Alexander's demadning an investigation into hiring practices across the Civil Service and all this sudden focus on wealthy contractors only paying 20% income tax when everyone else has to pay 40%... Can I suggest a Google for Lester at SLC.

Well, Lester doesn't work for HMRC.

However, if you read Private Eye, there are some long-term "interim" roles at HMRC which are being done by contractors. IIRC, the head of HR at HMRC operates through a Ltd.

[SueEllen]

Well, Lester doesn't work for HMRC.

However, if you read Private Eye, there are some long-term "interim" roles at HMRC which are being done by contractors. IIRC, the head of HR at HMRC operates through a Ltd.

Think of all the taxpayers money they are saving on NI and final salary pension payments.

Unfortunately the government were stupid and got caught......

[malvolio]

One needs to ask: whose objective?

Why did anyone think it would be the Contractor's objective?

[/hindsight]

Read back a month or so. I never thought it was anything other than HMRC's objective; else why did they reject a proposal for a solution that actually worked?

[xoggoth]

If you have your own business premises, which gives you 10 points

Would the shed do?