Big agencies with no clue re IR35

[b0redom]

Unfortunately yes. Your contract will state a rate due to your business but the legislation describes how this is to be taxed. If you apply for a permie role on £50,000 you can't complain that you don't get the whole £50k.

I suppose that you could insist on a clause that says "Day rate due after any and all legal deductions including taxes: £xxx".

Good luck with that; it would be interesting to see the fallout if anyone was able to slip this in somewhere

You do get the difference between contracts of employment and B2B contracts right?

[SueEllen]

You do get the difference between contracts of employment and B2B contracts right?

Nope breaktwister doesn't...

[jamesbrown]

Nope breaktwister doesn't...

Breaktwister needs to stop posting in the professional forums. They're a classic example of why a little knowledge is dangerous, especially when mixed with over-confidence.

[northernladuk]

Breaktwister needs to stop posting in the professional forums. They're a classic example of why a little knowledge is dangerous, especially when mixed with over-confidence.

And sadly it's all still there for the poor Bastards that are too late and need to learn in a hurry. All that stuff is gonna do is make their heads explode. Not good when they've only just pulled them out of the sand.

[CoolCat]

Some agencies seem to be writing their contracts specifically to catch contractors with IR35

[northernladuk]

Some agencies seem to be writing their contracts specifically to catch contractors with IR35

Pardon??

[bobspud]

Pardon??

He's right with regards to the contract. I had a massive argument with Hayes over their contract a few years ago. I walked away from the business in the end as they didn't get it.

[northernladuk]

He's right with regards to the contract. I had a massive argument with Hayes over their contract a few years ago. I walked away from the business in the end as they didn't get it.

I don't see the connection between your comment and cools. Hays were well known for having a bad contract and refusing to change it but do you think that is related to CoolCat comment?

[eek]

I don't see the connection between your comment and cools. Hays were well known for having a bad contract and refusing to change it but do you think that is related to CoolCat comment?

Hays is a prime example of a contract designed to not help a contractor with IR35 issues. We've also heard from others of some contracts that allow tax to be deducted in such a way that the contractor could move inside IR35 on April 6th without requiring either a new contract or giving said contractor a legitimate escape clause..

[m0n1k3r]

I just had a call from a consultant at one of the very big agents, looking for someone to work onsite at the MoD. I mentioned the public sector IR35 reforms and the agent said, "We have loads of people on site and none have been caught so far, and anyway, you'd be working for a consultancy, not the MoD directly."

I suspect this could very messy indeed soon....

They might be right. The position taken by public sector buyers is that if they buy through CL1 or any of the other temporary staffing frameworks, then it is caught because they are in effect contracting with you directly, and the agencies in between are merely there for administration and embezzl^Wadministration.

If they instead buy through a competition process, then the contract will between them and the supplying company (e.g. the consultancy), and your IR35 status will be entirely determined by your working relationship with the consultancy. If the consultancy treat you as a temporary staff then you will be caught. If they treat you as a delivery partner, then you won't.