IR35 and client's canteen

[MrMarkyMark]

Hence, all it takes is a successful and clever interpretation by the HMRC lawyers, and any one can be done under the IR35 law.

If you are too unlucky, a simple act of taking free coffee at your client's place can be twisted by HMRC as you being an employee of your client, hence caught under IR35 - this one might be an exaggeration, but they can do it!

I call absolute BS. Why do you think HMRC have won so few cases, if what you say is true?

As for saying an occasional free cup of coffee can prove you are caught is rubbish, there would have to be a hell of a lot more to the case than that.
Yes, IR35 is something to worry about, not to be totally paranoid about

[LondonManc]

Well most sausage rolls in clientco canteens are soggy and laying around for most of the day, t least in greggs they are fresh.

Tip for the OP: park in guest parking places. Parking in employee spaces will throw you inside IR35 (make a photo every day as proof)

Greggs sausage rolls appear to come in two temperatures - molten lava or polar ice cap.

[KUWTC]

I do sympathise with the original poster's plight, particularly in light of the uncertainty over what the future holds for IR35 come next April.

[missinggreenfields]

I do sympathise with the original poster's plight, particularly in light of the uncertainty over what the future holds for IR35 come next April.

The rules for determining IR35 are not changing (unless there is something new in the Autumn Statement).

[eek]

The rules for determining IR35 are not changing (unless there is something new in the Autumn Statement).

Yes they are in the public sector - granted you could fight over money that the end client has already sent to HMRC in a non-refundable format (National Insurance) but I can't see anyone putting much effort into that...

[missinggreenfields]

Yes they are in the public sector - granted you could fight over money that the end client has already sent to HMRC in a non-refundable format (National Insurance) but I can't see anyone putting much effort into that...

Thanks - can you provide a link to the legislation that changes the requirement for being inside IR35 from the requirement of all three pillars of employment? I must have missed it.

[eek]

Thanks - can you provide a link to the legislation that changes the requirement for being inside IR35 from the requirement of all three pillars of employment? I must have missed it.

Legislation? - HMRC have found a way of avoiding that by moving the liability from us to the party "employing" us - and most agencies are just going to pay up.

You can start at http://forums.contractoruk.com/futur...-launched.html but I think any of the first 3 non sticky threads in that forum will give you the story

[missinggreenfields]

Legislation? - HMRC have found a way of avoiding that by moving the liability from us to the party "employing" us - and most agencies are just gong to pay up.

So, the rules for determining IR35 aren't changing.

Thanks for clarifying that

[eek]

So, the rules for determining IR35 aren't changing.

Thanks for clarifying that

Which point of the test being based solely on supervision direction and control did you fail to read and comprehend

[jamesbrown]

Not sure what you're both arguing over TBH. You're both right to a degree. I assume there will be some legislative underpinning in the ITEPA (w/r to who is responsible for determining status), but the actual determinants of IR35 status aren't in legislation anyway. They are based on case law. None of that is changing, but it is being circumvented with the new PS rules, and the scope of the PS tests will be different than the scope of case law. In other words, your status may not have changed, fundamentally, but it will have changed for all practical purposes.