IR35 appeal success

[mudskipper]

No, that's the thing, the principles are just principles, and they are applied to each individual case in a subjective way. Each principle can be given materially different weight/nuance, depending on the specifics of any one engagement. That's the central problem with IR35. So, indeed, if would be different for "IT contractors" - it would be different for each individual IT contractor and contract

Fortunately HMRC have produced a tool that reduces that complexity to a few straightforward questions.

[mudskipper]

Does anyone else just leave an amount in the warchest in case of IR35? Am I right in assuming you just need to leave 6 years worth of difference plus interest to be safe? (I have to admit I have no idea what the fines are).

Leaving very little in the company reduces risk - it's yourCo that pays the due taxes and if yourCo has no money, HMRC are on a hiding to nothing. Debt is only transferred to directors in case of fraud or negligence.

Personally I have a bit of a 'warchest' in myCo, but I have insurance for worse case.

[saptastic]

https://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/ho..._overview.html

Fair play he represented himself.

[Batcher]

This is only one contract isn't it? 6 years or more only matters if you were on that contract that long. If you weren't there that long then the length of time they can go back is irrelevant.

No, it initially covered 1 contract then 3 in total. Part of their argument was the 24 month rule for travel. I had a 3 month break between 2 contracts in different parts of a city and they said the square mile rule should still apply. I argued that there was enough of a break and that there was sufficient distance between clients that the square mile rule didn't apply but they then came up with the direction of travel argument.

[Batcher]

Did you have to pay it all in the end?

No, IPSE (PCG at the time) scared the bad man away

[northernladuk]

https://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/ho..._overview.html

Fair play he represented himself.

Not really. You wouldn't say that if he'd lost.

[northernladuk]

No, it initially covered 1 contract then 3 in total. Part of their argument was the 24 month rule for travel. I had a 3 month break between 2 contracts in different parts of a city and they said the square mile rule should still apply. I argued that there was enough of a break and that there was sufficient distance between clients that the square mile rule didn't apply but they then came up with the direction of travel argument.

And what was the outcome of that. I would have also stated 3 months wasn't enough but it can't be proved via the 40% rolling and the square mile has always been a matter for debate.

[Batcher]

And what was the outcome of that. I would have also stated 3 months wasn't enough but it can't be proved via the 40% rolling and the square mile has always been a matter for debate.

They said I was guilty as charged but on this occasion wouldn't be looking for the money (paraphrased)

[northernladuk]

They said I was guilty as charged but on this occasion wouldn't be looking for the money (paraphrased)

Interesting. So we have case law on London expenses then. That will save a lot of further arguing about it.

Thanks for that.

[Batcher]

Interesting. So we have case law on London expenses then. That will save a lot of further arguing about it.

Thanks for that.

It didn't go to court though. My next step was to take it to the commissioners but that was going to cost me £7,500 - £10,000. QDOS said the insurance wouldn't cover it due to the low chance of success.

PCG got involved, wrote one letter and HMRC dropped it. Sent me a snippy letter with the paraphrase above.

I was surprised that, although they dropped the initial claim, they didn't chase me for the 24 month rule etc., to at least recover something. I was prepared to pay back expenses claimed or BIK but the whole thing was dropped.