• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

IR35 Working Practices Review and Software Code Reviews

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    IR35 Working Practices Review and Software Code Reviews

    I've just been through an IR35 Working Practices Review with QDos but this has found the practices within IR35 due to supervision because I've answered Yes to:

    Does anyone have the right to rigorously scrutinise the contractor's work?

    I'm a software developer, working on a project with other developers. For each piece of functionality developed, a Pull Request is made on GitHub, and the code will be reviewed by other members of the project team before being merged.

    A code review allows anyone in the project team the right to scrutinize the work, however this is more a collaborative process that the whole team gains from, rather than a supervisory role where one person will reject work until they think its good enough.

    Code reviews on software development projects are extremely common, there must be some contractors on here working outside of IR35 that participate in code reviews?

    #2
    Its all open to debate but I don't agree that is being supervised. Applying software development best practices isn't being supervised. Applying agile practices isn't being supervised. That is the view point I have been given by "professionals". Other opinions may differ.

    Did you just answer yes or provide a full explanation.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by dx4100 View Post
      Its all open to debate but I don't agree that is being supervised. Applying software development best practices isn't being supervised. Applying agile practices isn't being supervised. That is the view point I have been given by "professionals". Other opinions may differ.

      Did you just answer yes or provide a full explanation.
      I agree with this, ensuring quality standards isn't scrutinizing

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by VillageContractor View Post
        I agree with this, ensuring quality standards isn't scrutinizing
        Its like checking someone built a wall for you to the spec you provided. Sitting on it to make sure it doesn't fall over. Did they use the materials you asked them to use ? or did they build you a wood fence when you asked them to build a brick wall?

        If they are telling you how to build it, or rebuild it, rather than pointing out the issues they have found, then you are probably IR35 caught....

        Its all shades of grey... and I wouldn't think I know more than QDOS so who knows...
        Last edited by dx4100; 24 May 2016, 14:58.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by dx4100 View Post
          Its all open to debate but I don't agree that is being supervised. Applying software development best practices isn't being supervised. Applying agile practices isn't being supervised. That is the view point I have been given by "professionals". Other opinions may differ.

          Did you just answer yes or provide a full explanation.
          I answered Yes and once told this would be in scope, I've suggested an explanation, but haven't got it cleared by QDos yet.

          Comment


            #6
            I'd surprised that only one part of supervision, direction AND control failing would be enough to be a complete IR35 failure, given the two other parts of SDC plus a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation.

            Anyway - I'd suggest that a peer review of code isn't the same as "rigorous scrutiny". But maybe that's just the way that I review the code that I see as part of my project.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by missinggreenfields View Post
              I'd surprised that only one part of supervision, direction AND control failing would be enough to be a complete IR35 failure, given the two other parts of SDC plus a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation.

              Anyway - I'd suggest that a peer review of code isn't the same as "rigorous scrutiny". But maybe that's just the way that I review the code that I see as part of my project.
              My understanding is you only need to fail on one of them...

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by dx4100 View Post
                My understanding is you only need to fail on one of them...
                Your understanding is wrong.

                HMRC need to prove all three pilars of employment to show you are inside IR35; you only need to prove that one of them doesn't apply to be outside.

                See RMC.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by missinggreenfields View Post
                  Your understanding is wrong.

                  HMRC need to prove all three pilars of employment to show you are inside IR35; you only need to prove that one of them doesn't apply.
                  Really ? This tulip just got easy

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by missinggreenfields View Post
                    I'd surprised that only one part of supervision, direction AND control failing would be enough to be a complete IR35 failure, given the two other parts of SDC plus a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation.

                    Anyway - I'd suggest that a peer review of code isn't the same as "rigorous scrutiny". But maybe that's just the way that I review the code that I see as part of my project.
                    I can't get the client to accept that a code review isn't "rigorous scrutiny" - in fact this fairly sums up their code reviews. However its what's done afterwards that I'm trying to clarify, any feedback is discussed in the team and a consensus met, there isn't any supervision here, just team ownership.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X