IR35 Buddy - worth a closer look, maybe

[Clare@InTouch]

Actually we deal with the parts of HMRC that specialise in this industry and they are far from stupid and far more ahead of the game than you seem to think

Agreed. Having dealt with a few of the more senior bods I think it's dangerous to assume they are all as daft as their call centre staff would have us believe. The front line are monkeys in many cases, but that's always the case in a larger organisation.

[mudskipper]

I do hope you're not suggesting that HMRC are ever going to get hold of PCG's membership data? Because that's just not going to happen - ever!

Actually, I'd like HMRC to know that if they pick on me, I've got backing to fight them all the way. Hopefully they'll go for an easier target.

[northernladuk]

Actually, I'd like HMRC to know that if they pick on me, I've got backing to fight them all the way. Hopefully they'll go for an easier target.

I was going to go more down the route if they pick on me I will explain my situation, my insurances and so on and also include a list of 10 other contractors who haven't even heard of IR35 and used to work at the client before contracting with the names smudged out. The revealed list will be sent upon receiving HMRC's confirmation my investigation will go no further

[v8gaz]

Actually, I'd like HMRC to know that if they pick on me, I've got backing to fight them all the way. Hopefully they'll go for an easier target.

Me too, but I'd like it to be my choice to tell them if and when they turn up. What I don't want is to be on a list that some clown decides are potential targets.

[mudskipper]

I was going to go more down the route if they pick on me I will explain my situation, my insurances and so on and also include a list of 10 other contractors who haven't even heard of IR35 and used to work at the client before contracting with the names smudged out. The revealed list will be sent upon receiving HMRC's confirmation my investigation will go no further

Quite - my point was that the PGC+ contractors are likely to be IR35 savvy and to have taken other measures apart from the insurance to try and secure their 'outside' status. They're not going to be the easy targets.

[TheFaQQer]

So situation we're presumably discussing is:
- HMRC provide tickbox BETs stating if you're low risk they'll close the case.
- naive contractor uses IR35 buddy to help them tick sufficient boxes to become low risk.
- HMRC then say "Hmmm...we don't like the way you've ticked them, so we're going to ignore our own guidance".

I personally don't see that happening, but unless I've misunderstood, everyone bar me is saying that's what they think would happen?

If HMRC did that, I'd love to hear the justification for going against their own attempt at "simplification" of the muddy waters that is IR35.

I think you're starting to sound a little foolish if you think that getting out of an IR35 investigation is as simple as ticking a form that says you are low risk, and HMRC say "OK, you say you're low risk, so you must be, let's move on".

Do you honestly think that if HMRC sent you a form with the tick boxes on, all they you have to do is tick the right boxes, they then look at it and say "they must be telling us the truth, let's find someone else" and just close the investigation straight away??

[DaveB]

So situation we're presumably discussing is:
- HMRC provide tickbox BETs stating if you're low risk they'll close the case.
- naive contractor uses IR35 buddy to help them tick sufficient boxes to become low risk.
- HMRC then say "Hmmm...we don't like the way you've ticked them, so we're going to ignore our own guidance".

I personally don't see that happening, but unless I've misunderstood, everyone bar me is saying that's what they think would happen?

If HMRC did that, I'd love to hear the justification for going against their own attempt at "simplification" of the muddy waters that is IR35.

I think you need to go and read this document

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ir35/guidance.pdf

BET isn't just about ticking boxes, it's about having evidence to justify the boxes you ticked. No amount of buddies or gimmicks are going to give you that if it doesn't exist. HMRC will review your BET results and look at the evidence, if they don't think the evidence supports your claimed score they will look more closely. Submitting a "Low" result without being able to back it up is going to increase your chances of an investigation, not reduce it.

If you submit "evidence" that is clearly a contrived arrangement to increase your score on the BET, they are going to challenge it.

Specific example:

IR35 Buddy says you should claim your hourly rate against time spent maintaining your "advertising" with them.

Test
Has your business spent over £1,200 on advertising in the last 12 months?
Entertainment does not count as advertising.

Evidence

Copy of advertisement(s) placed
Copy of invoice(s)

[IR35Buddy]

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of what IR35Buddy is all about, and what it can do.

The site is for people who already consider themselves to be outside of IR35 and to allow them to prove this.

So many people seem to think that the BETs have no standing at all, when in reality it’s the Revenue’s assessment template, which they use as a starting point. We all know that BETs are referred to in enquiries, and they form part of the ‘assurance’ that Public Sector contractors have to provide. Everybody is also aware that HMRC have said if you can prove your ‘low risk’ score they will close the enquiry down. IR35Buddy helps you do exactly that.

What you will find on the site are solutions to challenges that are faced by legitimate businesses, every day – no matter how long they’ve been contracting for.

Why would joining a network of similar businesses who can subcontract with one another be a ‘contrived’ solution? Why would making use of national workspaces, that in themselves have only sprung up in reaction to the changing nature of a workforce that is now mobile, be artificial?

Regarding the Passport you simply can’t get one unless your contract and working practices have been fully reviewed and approved.

The site is also intended to help you source the best service providers and help you stay in contract.

So – on the premise that users are all genuinely in business, we offer genuine business solutions.

[Maslins]

I think you're starting to sound a little foolish if you think that getting out of an IR35 investigation is as simple as ticking a form that says you are low risk, and HMRC say "OK, you say you're low risk, so you must be, let's move on".

Do you honestly think that if HMRC sent you a form with the tick boxes on, all they you have to do is tick the right boxes, they then look at it and say "they must be telling us the truth, let's find someone else" and just close the investigation straight away??

I'm saying that the buddies give you the evidence to back up the ticks. BETs are yes/no answers, I don't think they give HMRC the scope to say "well, yes you met the criteria, but we don't like how you've done it".

Per QDOS, HMRC have been involved with the creation of the site, so presumably have seen what the buddies are about and not had any major objections. I don't think QDOS would put their name to it otherwise.

[GB9]

I personally don't see that happening, but unless I've misunderstood, everyone bar me is saying that's what they think would happen?

If HMRC did that, I'd love to hear the justification for going against their own attempt at "simplification" of the muddy waters that is IR35.

You have to act within the spirit of the law and if they think you aren't then they don't need any further justification. On that basis I suggest anyone with a 'Buddy' account is a prime target.Just look at all the tax avoidance schemes that 'tick the boxes' but are now being found to be a sham and penalised accordingly.