IR35 Buddy - worth a closer look, maybe

[tarbera]

PCG?

No-one is falling out, just differing in opinion. We are correct, and you are wrong. The fact that you have brolly girl, a couple of number crunchers, a PCG advocate and a few meat-heads all telling you so should give you a clue.

Anyway, much as I am not a fan of the PCG, I am not aware that it attempts to mis-represent contractors genuine positions by offering ways to try and avoid investigation through provision of deliberately misleading working options that enable boxes to be ticked. This is different to giving a genuine appraisal of a contractor's true position.

And if you aren't aware of the problems artificial box-ticking can cause, you need to do some serious reading.

PCG - Why not a Fan.?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Especially since HMRC's own guidance lists copies of the advert and invoices as appropriate evidence.

If I was HMRC looking at a submission that claimed to have "spent" £1200 updating an online profile I'd expect to see evidence that that time could have been spent generating income at least equal to that amount. If you did it on your own time you weren't getting paid for it anyway, if you did in in billable hours you should be able to show invoices minus the time spent resulting in a cost to your business.

It just doesn't fly IMO.

It looks as though they give you a 'receipt' for time spent

[DaveB]

It looks as though they give you a 'receipt' for time spent

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Couldn't have put it better myself

[Sausage Surprise]

Just the word "buddy" is enough to put me off.

[amcdonald]

Just the word "buddy" is enough to put me off.

I thought it was rather apt, after all you'll probably have a "buddy" in prison