IR35 Unfriendly

[Denny]

Discussion with EB recruiter yesterday - yes our contracts are back-to-back with client and our terms are standard with no MOO, rights of sub (with client consent) etc. So far so good, so off goes my business profile containing my own terms mirroring what we discussed and what he agreed was in place. It is obvious my skills and experience far exceed what is required from the job which is a good payer.

Call later - same recruiter - there's no way our client would agree to you working off site except with their permission - we know this client particularly well and some of our contractors have asked about this before and the client insists that their terms with us (the EB) disallows contractors from working on their own account from wherever they see fit provided the client deliverables are met on time and to a specific standard.



Well isn't that implied MOO then? Client control? Inside IR35? What this agency have stitched up is IR35 terms that are in no way a reflection of the onsite working practices that would uphold those practices satisfactorily with the IR.

Time this sort of thing was made illegal. The EBs expect us to be limited but they don't want us to behave like proper businesses with some of their clients. All they (the EB and client have stitched up) is an on-site de-facto temp with no rights whereby the client's understanding of real business practices apparently goes no further than knowing they can terminate without notice.

Yet, apparently, according to numptys like ATSCO Ann Swine etc. contractors choose contracting because they want to be in control of their own destiny and be their own boss. What a laugh!

Am I laughing?

[tim123]

Time this sort of thing was made illegal. The EBs expect us to be limited but they don't want us to behave like proper businesses with some of their clients.

Your problem is Danny, that this view is wrong. The EB/Clients don't want you to be Limited. Most of them want a BoS Permatemp. It is you (and me) who wants to be a Limited company providing professional consulting services.

However, ISTM that as they are the ones with the money, you have to make your model fit theirs, not the other way around.

And as for being given one story from the agent one day and another the next. This is because (necessarily or not) they are salespeople. You get the same bullsh1t if you try to buy double glazing. But the difference is that you can walk away from from the double glazing salsman at little inconvenience. Unless you don't need to work, we're stuck with dodgy agents.

tim

[Captain Jack]

All they [want] is an on-site de-facto temp with no rights

It's taken you a while to figure that out, Denny.

[Denny]

Your problem is Danny, that this view is wrong. The EB/Clients don't want you to be Limited. tim

Name me one professional EB that pays direct NI and PAYE at source.

All the EBs I've ever contacted insist on brolly or Limited. So what do you mean that they don't want limiteds?

[Denny]

It's taken you a while to figure that out, Denny.

I already know that CJ. I'm the main protagonist on this site about EB to client EB to contractor model misfitting. Read some of my previous posts.

The point I'm making is that the EBs haven't a clue about recent case law or anything else relevant to running a freelance business, yet they still expect us to be limited company structures. Essentially, with recent changes in tax laws over MSCs etc. and probably all brollies soon and PSCs as well no doubt, we have two options:

Either be grossly inefficient in running our businesses, (two lots of NI plus tax on all our income) or risk working on site illegally claiming for tax exemptions we're not lawfully entitled to just because the client wants our face to fit more than our business skills. This is not a dilemma I think we should be subjected to and therefore it should be outlawed.

[tim123]

Name me one professional EB that pays direct NI and PAYE at source.

None (that I know of), they all direct you to an MSC. That way you get to pay the payrolling fee, not them.

All the EBs I've ever contacted insist on brolly or Limited. So what do you mean that they don't want limiteds?

They 'want' them for adminstrative ease. They don't want them so that the director provides a consulting service.

tim

[Captain Jack]

The point I'm making is that the EBs haven't a clue about recent case law or anything else relevant to running a freelance business, yet they still expect us to be limited company structures.

Not really, Denny, they don't want the risk of being landed with the bill if you don't pay your taxes or having the hassle of payrolling you. It's a big step from that position to stating that they therefore want a consultancy style service.

[tim123]

just because the client wants our face to fit more than our business skills. This is not a dilemma I think we should be subjected to and therefore it should be outlawed.

But if this is what the client wants (as you seem to admit), then this is what the client will go out to buy.

If you (somehow) make it illegal for this item to be purchased through a PSC then what will happen is that the client will purchase the person as agency PAYE (or from a software house). The leopard won't change his spots and buy something different just because one shop stops selling it. He will buy it from the two others who are still selling.

tim

[Cowboy Bob]

Name me one professional EB that pays direct NI and PAYE at source.

DP Connect

[Robwg]

I don't really see what your problem is. If you work for a big consultancy on a client site (as I have done many times before becoming a contractor) they quite often won't allow consultants to work offsite as they (rightly) want to show that the grand a day they are spending on a contractor is visible. That is just the way it is - it comes with the high daily rate unfortunately.

Either way - I don't see a problem with IR35. If you behave like a limited firm....you behave like a limited firm.