Contract failed review

[BolshieBastard]

What I don't get is, what are these legal companies saying to get clients/agencies to change contracts? "Do it or I'll get my dad on you"?

From my past experience with Bauer & Cottrell, they tend to suggest different wording to a clause and use examples to show either the original clause is not reasonable or not enforcible or does not accurately reflects the working practices.

There's also the fact that the agencies know these guys are not some bunch of numb nuts just arguing for arguments sake.

Of course there are always some clauses they cannot get changed because the agency just wont budge.

[mudskipper]

You could declare this one inside IR35 and pay the tax and NI due - possibly even include a rate hike to cover this?

Or you could NOT declare yourself inside IR35, put the money to one side and hope that you aren't investigated - if you are, you have the money to pay for it; if not, you pocket the cash.

If the working practices are different from the contract, then there's always a chance that you could still fight an IR35 investigation and win, but it's harder if the paper contract supports HMRC's view and not yours.

If you don't need the work, then I'd be inclined to walk away if it was me, though.

(And a belated happy birthday since you're back)

I reckon you could be on dodgy ground on this if you were unlucky enough to get investigated. If you've been told your contract is inside and you knowingly declare yourself outside, then it's difficult to argue against penalties if HMRC are being particularly arsey.

[vwdan]

I reckon you could be on dodgy ground on this if you were unlucky enough to get investigated. If you've been told your contract is inside and you knowingly declare yourself outside, then it's difficult to argue against penalties if HMRC are being particularly arsey.

On the QDOS reviews it specifically says that they're not intended to be shared with HMRC

[TheFaQQer]

I reckon you could be on dodgy ground on this if you were unlucky enough to get investigated. If you've been told your contract is inside and you knowingly declare yourself outside, then it's difficult to argue against penalties if HMRC are being particularly arsey.

Generally I would agree, but how would HMRC ever know that you had it reviewed and ignored the advice?

How would HMRC be able to categorically prove that at that stage, you knew the working practices would absolutely match the contract which had been reviewed?

I don't think I would do it myself, but for some people, the risk is worth the reward.

[BolshieBastard]

On the QDOS reviews it specifically says that they're not intended to be shared with HMRC

Generally I would agree, but how would HMRC ever know that you had it reviewed and ignored the advice?

How would HMRC be able to categorically prove that at that stage, you knew the working practices would absolutely match the contract which had been reviewed?

I don't think I would do it myself, but for some people, the risk is worth the reward.

Er, they'll ask 'do you ever have your contracts reviewed?' during an IR35 investigation You say no and you have and it came back a fail, you're banged to rights. Say yes and it failed, you're still banged to rights.

[jamesbrown]

Er, they'll ask 'do you ever have your contracts reviewed?' during an IR35 investigation You say no and you have and it came back a fail, you're banged to rights. Say yes and it failed, you're still banged to rights.

Agreed and, if necessary, they could check the business bank account for payments related to potential contract reviews. It's one thing sharing a review directly (shouldn't be done), but it's an entirely different thing to ignore a failed review or to lie about it having taken place or about the outcome. The absence of a successful review should be expected to result in penalties, were the WP subsequently found to be inside, either as a result of fraud (having a review and ignoring or even lying about the outcome) or negligence (not having a review). I expect the penalties would be scaled accordingly, but I don't know the details of how these are determined. Bottom line, you'd be a complete muppet to not have a review, and an even bigger muppet to ignore an unfavourable outcome.