IR35 - Reviewed by 2 accountants

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

I am in a pretty similar situation as the OP. I had an initial review done by B&C, and then submitted the same info (including the info in the questionnaire) to Accountax, who came out with the opposite conclusion. I am planning to get a CoA from the client project manager, to try and mitigate risk.

Oh, thats frustrating.

Chat to your accountant about ways of mitigating funds at stake. Generally that means keeping as little in the company as possible.

[MickeyP]

Oh, thats frustrating.

Chat to your accountant about ways of mitigating funds at stake. Generally that means keeping as little in the company as possible.

Is this true? Does keeping low funds in company account make you less likely to get a visit from HMRC? I thought they could come after the Director if they needed to?

Does anybody who has had experience of an IR35 investigation have any comments?

[jamesbrown]

I am in a pretty similar situation as the OP. I had an initial review done by B&C, and then submitted the same info (including the info in the questionnaire) to Accountax, who came out with the opposite conclusion. I am planning to get a CoA from the client project manager, to try and mitigate risk.

Interesting, but it can happen, since it's based on professional opinion. In that situation, I'd probably return to one or both with the source of the discrepancy and ask for their further input - I'm sure they'd be happy to provide it. It may be that one or other misunderstood something you wrote. Ultimately, though, some contracts and WP are going to be marginal and those cases will come down to how the reviewer/company is calibrated w/r to the advice they offer and perceived risk.

[Clare@InTouch]

Is this true? Does keeping low funds in company account make you less likely to get a visit from HMRC? I thought they could come after the Director if they needed to?

Does anybody who has had experience of an IR35 investigation have any comments?

Keeping less funds in the account has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of an investigation. What it does do is ensure that if HMRC decide you're inside then the funds available for them to take in back taxes are limited - unless they decide to go after the directors/shareholders personally (in cases of fraud or negligence).

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

Keeping less funds in the account has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of an investigation. What it does do is ensure that if HMRC decide you're inside then the funds available for them to take in back taxes are limited - unless they decide to go after the directors/shareholders personally (in cases of fraud or negligence).

Concur, very concisely put.

[Zero Liability]

Interesting, but it can happen, since it's based on professional opinion. In that situation, I'd probably return to one or both with the source of the discrepancy and ask for their further input - I'm sure they'd be happy to provide it. It may be that one or other misunderstood something you wrote. Ultimately, though, some contracts and WP are going to be marginal and those cases will come down to how the reviewer/company is calibrated w/r to the advice they offer and perceived risk.

I've done so already, as I informed Accountax of the original review and its basis, and their reply was that it was pretty much a case of what you mentioned. I have purchased IR35 insurance (again, informing them of all this, and filling out their own WP questionnaire) and will try to get a CoA, however, to cover all bases. Not sure if the client's PM will be happy to sign one of these but it's worth a try as she is reasonable.