IR35buddy

[psychocandy]

Agree. What's their incentive - whether contractor is limited, PAYE or umbrella their margin is the same.

Voting with feet would make a difference, but if MegaBank make MegaAgency it's sole provider, in a tight market, then people are stuffed.

EXACTLY. Agency doesnt give a stuff how things work out finanically for contractor.

[psychocandy]

I personally know four (Ok, three plus me), people who have been through Ir35 enquiries involving Hays contracts.

Not one of us lost.

Easy cases my arse !!

Worrying that they were all from one agency. Gives some weight to the theory that HMRC are targeting via agency.

Agree with you about insurance thing. Who were/are you with? PCG/QDOS/other?

[eek]

Worrying that they were all from one agency. Gives some weight to the theory that HMRC are targeting via agency.

Agree with you about insurance thing. Who were/are you with? PCG/QDOS/other?

Read what you've posted again and now think.

TestMangler's statement was in answer to the idea that HMRC could go to Hays and identify soft targets. Testmangler says he knew 4 people under IR35 investigation who worked via Hays and non of them were soft targets. That is the end of the statement.

You then took a single fact and extrapolated from that that HMRC are targetting via agency where there is no evidence to show that at all.

And yet you wonder why me and NLUK always reply to your posts. 99% of the time its because you comment based on extrapolated fears from the other side of insanely paranoid / utterly loopy

[GB9]

Aren't Hayes' contracts usually non-ir35 friendly?

Also, to Psycho, were the people you know all at the same end client?

There are a number of criteria I would look for if I were HMRC looking for a cohort of investigation candidates. Being PCG and QDOS members / policy holders wouldn't be one of them.

[DirtyDog]

And yet you wonder why me and NLUK always reply to your posts.

And yet you wonder why NLUK and I always reply to your posts.

[TestMangler]

Aren't Hayes' contracts usually non-ir35 friendly?

Also, to Psycho, were the people you know all at the same end client?

There are a number of criteria I would look for if I were HMRC looking for a cohort of investigation candidates. Being PCG and QDOS members / policy holders wouldn't be one of them.

Please read my post several pages back.

Opinions are like a**e-holes, everyone has one. Doesn't make it a fact.

I'm obviously missing something here. Why in the hell would HMRC target the membership list of an organisation who's members will all be professionally and rigorously defended against claims of being inside IR35 ???

[TestMangler]

Worrying that they were all from one agency. Gives some weight to the theory that HMRC are targeting via agency.

Agree with you about insurance thing. Who were/are you with? PCG/QDOS/other?

Move along ! No conspiracy to see here !

These were totally separate incidents spanning four years, with three of them having specific reasons for the enquiry, not related to the agency.

I was on the freebie (as in 'included in the package') insurance that came with Shout99 at the time. I think they all lead back to one or two providers though (I could be wrong) so the source of the policy is not relevant.

[Maslins]

I'm obviously missing something here. Why in the hell would HMRC target the membership list of an organisation who's members will all be professionally and rigorously defended against claims of being inside IR35 ???

I think that's the toss up for HMRC.

On the one hand PCG/QDOS members will mostly be contractors, hence at higher risk of being inside IR35. On the other, they'll have professional representation so be well defended.

If HMRC deliberately go for non members, then whilst they will be less likely to have a good defence team, there's also a fair chance the reason they're not members is because IR35 doesn't come remotely close to applying to them.

I guess the argument some would have against IR35 buddy is that it flags you're concerned about IR35, but doesn't by itself give you the professional defence team.

[TestMangler]

I think that's the toss up for HMRC.

On the one hand PCG/QDOS members will mostly be contractors, hence at higher risk of being inside IR35. On the other, they'll have professional representation so be well defended.

If HMRC deliberately go for non members, then whilst they will be less likely to have a good defence team, there's also a fair chance the reason they're not members is because IR35 doesn't come remotely close to applying to them.

I guess the argument some would have against IR35 buddy is that it flags you're concerned about IR35, but doesn't by itself give you the professional defence team.

Best to be in business on your own account then, and spend time doing that rather than ridiculous conspiracy theories about targeting members on non members of an organisation or trying to place yourself in a false relationship with someone to look like a business.

[northernladuk]

I thought IR35 investigations were most likely to be triggered by other tax issues so all these targetting certain groups through agencies and membership is a big red herring no? The idea that HMRC would target Hays contractors just sound ludicrous. What about targetting people on certain factors to improve chances of winning? Surely that would be much more sensible.