Contract review

[pmeswani]

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

Not considering a contract review is out of the question for the reason you have highlighted. I pay for my IPSE subs, regardless of whether I am in contract or not. If I am going to be investigated, I will want to make sure that I have my due dillegence.

[jamesbrown]

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

I expect they'd represent you to the best of their ability and get you the best outcome possible, but I can't see them burning money unless there's a point of law to clarify. If the working practices are blatantly inside, there's bugger all they can do about it.

[TheFaQQer]

Interesting one but would be interested to see how IPSE would feel about someone who had a contract, had been advised they were inside IR35, decided to proceed as if outside anyway and then expected IPSE to bail them out when HMRC came knocking?

Hmmm.....

I can't speak for IPSE but I've asked something similar in the past.

IPSE will handle any tax investigation for you. That's part of the standard or plus membership.

I would expect that at some stage, the lawyers will make a decision about how far they fight the case or whether to settle. Since it's unlikely to be an open and shut case, I'd expect a certain amount of fight before giving in to HMRC.

[jamesbrown]

I would expect that at some stage, the lawyers will make a decision about how far they fight the case or whether to settle.

That's precisely what will happen, whether you have IPSE+, QDOS or any other legal representation you can get without a contract review. They won't take it beyond a point that makes sense unless there's a broader point of law to clarify.

[TheFaQQer]

If they say no can do, I'll probably accept the contract on the grounds that QDOS have said that the contract was a general pass. I acknowledge that this is not a guarantee that I won't get investigated, but I feel more comfortable accepting the contract based on a professional advice.

If they say no, get Qdos to negotiate with them for you - the result may still be a "no" from the agency, but at least you've let a professional negotiate with them.

[expat]

You're concluding that on the basis of the review of a single (probably borderline) contract that is trying to navigate legislation that is specifically designed to create FUD? Good luck

Just bear in mind that there are significant consequences from failing to conduct due diligence in the event that a contract is found inside IR35 or, indeed, in the event that a failed review is ignored. Notwithstanding the low risk of being selected for investigation and any selected contract from being found inside if properly represented, it will be a long, stressful, and potentially expensive process if you've failed to conduct the due diligence.

You are quite right, given the assumption that you seem to be making (that I will treat future contracts as outside IR35 and make arrangements with tax consequences accordingly). I should not give the impression that I would be so cavalier.

[pmeswani]

If they say no, get Qdos to negotiate with them for you - the result may still be a "no" from the agency, but at least you've let a professional negotiate with them.

To be honest, the issues raised are relatively minor ones, and ones I am prepared to accept. As far as QDOS are concerned, the general contract and the working practices are a pass. There's just some technical points that they recommend they should amend. The worst case scenario, I would get QDOS to speak to the agency legal team and let them sorted out, but it is unlikely to hamper me in taking the role.