Long Contracts

[curtis]

I do not like long contracts as the longer I stay the more they start treating me like a permie and thats a reason i wanted to get into contracting so that would not be the case.

[northernladuk]

You do know that changing agencies makes no difference to the 24 month rule, right?

And won't make any difference to IR35. It will probably be impossible to do due to handcuffs and contracts.

[northernladuk]

@nluk Good post. Your long gig sounds a bit like current situation. After one year, the quality of work started to go down, after 18 months a bit of politics started to kick in. Coming up to 2 years and ennui is starting to build. It's a good place to work but I do now feel a bit like "just another resource".

Silly question maybe but what do you mean by "individual schedules of work" ?

When you start a contract one of your main defences is having a defined piece of work to do. Once that is complete your contract is effectively over. If you start accepting any work handed to you above and beyond this by the client means you are under Direction and Control and are nothing more than a resource rather than a supplier delivering a set product. Permies just do the next piece of work given, not contractors. JLJ's case fell apart on this point. If the client asks you to do anything that is not on your existing schedule you need to get him to give you a new schedule of agreed work. I am still dubious about this route on long gigs as it just becomes a papertrail but the reality is the client is treating you like a permie. The more they do it the more watered down it becomes as a defence IMO but either way. Any work above and beyond you existing requirement should be agreed.

You should also do you best to avoid generic schedules i.e. PM for <client>. This is a permie title not a statement of work so should be avoided at all costs. What would be better would be PM for <project>. That way you can evidence you are contracted to deliver a piece of work. Doesn't matter if it's for 3 months or 6 years. You are still delivering and agreed scope of work. PM for <client> and doing project after project or a few in parallel is what a permie does.

[northernladuk]

You can read about JLJ here..
IT contractor JLJ in first ever 'split IR35 case' :: Contractor UK

Lots of interesting stuff but key comments are things like..

"However I can see sense in what the judge said [to Mr Spencer]: 'Up to a point you were doing specific bits of work and projects, after that point you were really no different to being a permanent employee.'"

Such a lack of control is "fine" when the worker is providing expert services (judgement point 23) - on a unique project (point 42), but not, explains Ms Cottrell, when "the engager needs work undertaken repeatedly, and when you are working generally within the organisation."

and many other comments around a similar point.

[northernladuk]

Long contracts via a limited company have more chance of being investigated by HMRC. By their nature of long term, you can quite easily find yourself becoming part and parcel of the organisation and HR especially, considering you more than ever not to be a contractor.

Yes, you can mitigate against this but imvho, if you're at a place for 3, 4 or 5 years and more, you're going to have a tough job.

I know some contractors working through their limited at the same client for over 7 years. They are banged to rights IR35 caught and part and parcel of the organisation. Their only hope is a rock solid subbie clause because they fail on MOO and D&C.

I was once at a place for over 3 years although I'd considered not renewing from 2 years.

All of this. I do believe you can successfully defend a long contract but as I mentioned it's very hard and I got singled out for doing so that tells you the general consensus of your client and indeed other contractors is it's a lost cause so naturally fall in to IR35.

[northernladuk]

Oddly enough I just got a mail from contractorweekly with an article about part and parcel. It's pretty crap as usual for them but it's here..

http://www.contractorweekly.com/cont...e-organisation

[unixman]

Good info guys, keep 'em coming

@nluk a "schedule of work" - are you referring to something written into the contract, or just in a document/agreed by email or similar ?

[TheFaQQer]

Good info guys, keep 'em coming

@nluk a "schedule of work" - are you referring to something written into the contract, or just in a document/agreed by email or similar ?

Either. Better if it's in the contract, but as long as you have an agreement that you could have turned down then an email would suffice - bear in mind that HMRC need to consider the reality of the implied contract, so exactly where it is defined should be a moot point. But if it's in the actual contract then you'd be better off.

[northernladuk]

Either. Better if it's in the contract, but as long as you have an agreement that you could have turned down then an email would suffice - bear in mind that HMRC need to consider the reality of the implied contract, so exactly where it is defined should be a moot point. But if it's in the actual contract then you'd be better off.

^ This.

If you have say a two year contract with a generic schedule and then just get a load of pieces of paper in that two years agreeing work it does start to look a little like a sham as the expectation of the client was for you to be there two years regardless of work. This is where your paper trail exercise fails you. If your client just views you as part and parcel it's nigh on impossible to put up a solid defence whatever you do.

My belligerence at my long term client paid off as it got to the stage where we actually agreed to end the contract for the last piece of work and they issued a new contract with detailed schedule for every major piece of work. Much better as it would be difficult to prove any long term expectation from the client. Using this period to take a holiday or a week or so off also meant the contracts weren't effectively end to end. I don't doubt I was a bit lucky to pull this scenario off though.

[Gaz_M]

Anybody doing years in one contract is not a contractor in my opinion.