IR35 - Potential client can't fill perm role

[Hobosapien]

Not sure we've had many on here been involved in an IR35 investigation while covered by QDOS (or alternative) review and insurance?

Maybe having done that due diligence gives a high enough barrier to entry for HMRC to look elsewhere for easier pickings, presuming they understand that passing the review means a positive result for them ought to be less likely, and there are plenty who don't bother doing the due diligence.

Though not sure HMRC would know in advance of a review having been done unless it was via their own service, unless there's some info sharing going on behind the scenes. So it may be the first weapon to use if an investigation is triggered like swatting a nasty pest away. Then if they persist then invoke the insurance and hope it stand up to scrutiny.

As with any insurance you only find out its worth when you come to need it.

[Hobosapien]

Bearing in mind working practices trump the contract do you not think it would be wise to look in to it a little better?

The QDOS review (and I presume the other similar review services) requires details of working practices for them to make the assessment. They passed the review of my current contract on working practices despite the standard issue contract being borderline (open to interpretation by HMRC) on some of the terms.

[northernladuk]

Not sure we've had many on here been involved in an IR35 investigation while covered by QDOS (or alternative) review and insurance?

Maybe having done that due diligence gives a high enough barrier to entry for HMRC to look elsewhere for easier pickings, presuming they understand that passing the review means a positive result for them ought to be less likely, and there are plenty who don't bother doing the due diligence.

Though not sure HMRC would know in advance of a review having been done unless it was via their own service, unless there's some info sharing going on behind the scenes. So it may be the first weapon to use if an investigation is triggered like swatting a nasty pest away. Then if they persist then invoke the insurance and hope it stand up to scrutiny.

As with any insurance you only find out its worth when you come to need it.

We've had 3 or 4 mention it, one quite recently. 4 in 13k with each one being years of investigation and the potential to lose 10-100's of K of money.. Those are terrible odds. IMO take IR35 very seriously and you'll be safe.

I believe the common understanding is it can follow a tax investigation or someone dobs you in it. I do think times are changing now and data sharing is going to be a threat (only if you are doing it wrong) so could be much easier in the future to target.

QDOS pop on from time to time and give us some insight in to the number of investigations and the like (not actual figures) so it is real. The only post I can find from them is http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...tml#post270098

In there they say it's never a certainty to win so 4/13 and you are on the backfoot from the start.. The picture get's worse. They also say make a comment on TLC35 about a working practice assessment. This assumes the contractor is honest and is realistic... Which I bet most aren't.

[northernladuk]

The QDOS review (and I presume the other similar review services) requires details of working practices for them to make the assessment. They passed the review of my current contract on working practices despite the standard issue contract being borderline (open to interpretation by HMRC) on some of the terms.

Yep. It's your risk so it's up to you how you approach it and I am sure most are fine. It is a self provided assessment though (isn't it) and it's going to be biased because you already think you are outside. If you fill it in so you pass it's not going to really reflect the actual situation. HMRC will come and rip it apart so it's only as good as how realistic you are. That said it's enough for them to insure you so that's all you need really I guess.

Most on here are savvy enough to come for help so will follow the steps as you mention, a couple will fill it in wrong but there are a crap load of people out there that haven't a clue or don't care about IR35. Although we bang on about it on here a lot I think a majority on here are a tough catch for HMRC. Plenty more uninsured permatractors out there for them to chase.

[Hobosapien]

Yep. It's your risk so it's up to you how you approach it and I am sure most are fine. It is a self provided assessment though (isn't it) and it's going to be biased because you already think you are outside. If you fill it in so you pass it's not going to really reflect the actual situation. HMRC will come and rip it apart so it's only as good as how realistic you are. That said it's enough for them to insure you so that's all you need really I guess.

Most on here are savvy enough to come for help so will follow the steps as you mention, a couple will fill it in wrong but there are a crap load of people out there that haven't a clue or don't care about IR35. Although we bang on about it on here a lot I think a majority on here are a tough catch for HMRC. Plenty more uninsured permatractors out there for them to chase.

Yes it was just a questionnaire for me to complete without any requirement to get proof from the client.

Opens up the possibility of the client giving a different view if they're ever questioned directly by HMRC. I know that issue has been covered on here before as it's always been in the back of my mind. Maybe I should have tried getting it signed by my 'handler' at the client even though not requested by QDOS, as a bit more evidence that the working practices were for real. Not sure getting it signed would have been straightforward though, a bit more to it than just signing a time sheet.

[northernladuk]

Yes it was just a questionnaire for me to complete without any requirement to get proof from the client.

Opens up the possibility of the client giving a different view if they're ever questioned directly by HMRC. I know that issue has been covered on here before as it's always been in the back of my mind. Maybe I should have tried getting it signed by my 'handler' at the client even though not requested by QDOS, as a bit more evidence that the working practices were for real. Not sure getting it signed would have been straightforward though, a bit more to it than just signing a time sheet.

You need a Confirmation of Arrangement's letter for that. It's mentioned here by QDOS and I am sure there is a template on their site somewhere but I actually have to do some work for my client this morning so you'll have to go find it.

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/news/...f-arrangements

It's not a golden bullet and it's very dependant on getting the right answers and ultimately the right person signing it. I try to get one of these at every gig but only had one or two signed and one of those I suspect wasn't the best person. No chance in a PS!

[Hobosapien]

You need a Confirmation of Arrangement's letter for that. It's mentioned here by QDOS and I am sure there is a template on their site somewhere but I actually have to do some work for my client this morning so you'll have to go find it.

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/news/...f-arrangements

It's not a golden bullet and it's very dependant on getting the right answers and ultimately the right person signing it. I try to get one of these at every gig but only had one or two signed and one of those I suspect wasn't the best person. No chance in a PS!

Thanks for the info, very interesting for future reference.

The QDOS one I did was a PS specific pack that resulted in a certificate to hand to HR, when they started requiring IR35 assurances following that Danny Alexander review (I think) and no such confirmation doc was included in the pack.