ir35 in private sector

[TonyF]

Although I'm sure it happens, I imagine that the scenario where the permie and contractor sit alongside each other doing exactly the same job is not that frequent in our line of work (assuming most of us are IT contractors). Possibly more common in something like nursing, but I may be misunderstanding that domain.

I agree

I've worked with a fair few consultancies in my time, all of whom had a specialist practice for the software that we were implementing. And yet they didn't have the specialist skills to deliver the project and needed to stack it with contractors.

It's rare in my field that there is a permie who does what I do, but I can see how HMRC can say "but you're just a coder" and therefore interchangeable with the next person. I suspect a fair few of us have worked with project / programme managers who think the same thing, so why shouldn't HMRC?

[simes]

Well, I've got myself a QDOS IR35 insurance last night. Never felt it necessary before, but the time has come now to fork out the money, just for my peace of mind if nothing else.

Thing is, IR35 insurance is for if you get investigated by the HMRC. An HMRC lead action.

Correct me if I am wrong, but following private sector reform, what is the likelihood that IR35 investigation is instigated by the contractor to recoup already paid taxes? Does IR35 insurance cover that?

Perhaps a question to go to IPSE and membership perks.

[BlasterBates]

Where I work and where I've worked before most contractors and permies are interchangeable and only distinguishable by the colour of their badge. So my experience is that there isn't really a difference between interim Doctors or IT contractors. I have occasionally come across what I would call a "real contractor" who is truly independent, one even had his own offices and a couple of temporary employees from time to time.

As long as you don't stay too long in any place you can usually restrict your work to a specific part of a project and sow sufficient seeds of uncertainty to be outside IR35.

[simes]

As long as you don't stay too long in any place you can usually restrict your work to a specific part of a project and sow sufficient seeds of uncertainty to be outside IR35.

Yup, that was hitherto my point of view as well. So long as there were enough seeds, I never worried unduly.

But going forward, will a client ever care about your seeds sufficiently to not blanket decide your IR35 fate?

Thus inspired by my own post above, I have popped the question to IPSE to see if their membership would ever be tailored towards contractors instigating the IR35 actions and the provision of legal support thereafter...

[TonyF]

Thus inspired by my own post above, I have popped the question to IPSE to see if their membership would ever be tailored towards contractors instigating the IR35 actions and the provision of legal support thereafter...

In the past, IPSE have actively invited people who want to argue with their clients about being pushed inside IR35 and said they would help them out

The more cases that help us all the better IMHO.

[OneManBand]

Have you looked at IPSE+ as well? Other benefits like jury duty and business interruption if gigs go south. You can make the cost up with the Advantages scheme if you are thrifty type.

I did look at IPSE+ but they don't seem to have a tax liability insurance. It's not enough to have legal representation cover, I need cover for any tax liability as well.

[SueEllen]

I did look at IPSE+ but they don't seem to have a tax liability insurance. It's not enough to have legal representation cover, I need cover for any tax liability as well.

They don't lose unless you have been an idiot.

[mudskipper]

<detail removed, as I will be publishing elsewhere>

[cojak]

[WordIsBond]

I put this arrangement through the CEST tool, and it comes out as subject to intermediaries legislation, i.e. caught by IR35.

This should clearly come out outside under SDC.

How did you answer to:
Can the end client move the worker to a different task than they originally agreed to do? The answer according to your description is no, they contact you and make a new agreement for each task. You should clarify this with a generic agreement that covers your general working arrangement with them and then a very brief supplementary agreement for each new task. It can be as simple as having a schedule of work as part of the main agreement, and a one paragraph supplement for each task that says, "Mudskipper Ltd and Client Ltd agree to add the following task to the schedule of work under our master contract. The work is estimated to take X hours (or days)." Then, a brief description of the task.

Once the worker starts the engagement, does the end client have the right to decide how the work should be done? The answer should be no. They have the right to set the specs of what they want you to deliver, but not to decide how you should deliver it. They are asking for a result, not how you get there.

Can the end client decide the schedule of working hours? No.

Can the worker choose where they work? The answer here should be yes. A meeting or two to nail down specs or a meeting for delivery is not about them deciding where you work.

I'm guessing you went wrong on the first SDC question, and said they could move you to a different task if it was mutually agreed. But that's not what is happening here. They are contacting you and asking you to do a different task from what you've done for them in the past. It is a new contract. For your own protection you should formalise that in some way. I do what I've suggested above.