• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Qdos 42 questions - IR35 Assessment: Has anyone done it already?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    "The Agency can't afford it"...????

    I suppose if they have 5000 active contractors on their books at £50 a head to process the review to them, they would have to find £250k to cover the costs. Sounds reasonable.

    But don't those 5000 contractors generate around £150k in income for the agency (assuming 10% margin at £300 a day). so yes, £100 k has to come from somewhere.

    Hang on though - that's £150k a day they are making, probably with a 10% profit margin after paying their own bills. Call it £10k a day.

    So you are paying for an insurance that protects them and their client on the basis they can't afford it.

    What could possibly go wrong...
    Blog? What blog...?

    Comment


      #22
      Just gone through the Qdos assessment, currently waiting for client confirmation to my answers. As far as I can tell it's an automated version of the working practice review.
      Make Mercia Great Again!

      Comment


        #23
        I have so many issues with contractors filling their own IR35 questionnaires in.
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          #24
          Resurrecting this old thread as I've just been asked to complete this. I was somewhat taken aback as the contractor answering the questions that are used for status determination doesn't seem to reflect the 21 ir35 reforms.

          Has anyone else been asked to do this? Does it seem reasonable?


          Spoke to qdos and asked why I'm involved and they said it's a stronger case if contractor co and client co are both involved. Apparently client has final sign off on the answers. Still unsure why qdos are doing this. Feels like it's trying to subvert the legislation and make the contractor accountable.
          ​​​Lord knows it opens the contractor up to risks they shouldn't have to have.

          ​​​​​​

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by MrC View Post
            Resurrecting this old thread as I've just been asked to complete this. I was somewhat taken aback as the contractor answering the questions that are used for status determination doesn't seem to reflect the 21 ir35 reforms.

            Has anyone else been asked to do this? Does it seem reasonable?


            Spoke to qdos and asked why I'm involved and they said it's a stronger case if contractor co and client co are both involved. Apparently client has final sign off on the answers. Still unsure why qdos are doing this. Feels like it's trying to subvert the legislation and make the contractor accountable.
            ​​​Lord knows it opens the contractor up to risks they shouldn't have to have.

            ​​​​​​
            For a contract to be outside Ir35 both sides need to be singing from the same hymnsheet and doing the necessary steps required to ensure the contract is (and remains) outside IR35.

            I really don't see the issue here.
            merely at clientco for the entertainment

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by MrC View Post
              Resurrecting this old thread as I've just been asked to complete this. I was somewhat taken aback as the contractor answering the questions that are used for status determination doesn't seem to reflect the 21 ir35 reforms.

              Has anyone else been asked to do this? Does it seem reasonable?


              Spoke to qdos and asked why I'm involved and they said it's a stronger case if contractor co and client co are both involved. Apparently client has final sign off on the answers. Still unsure why qdos are doing this. Feels like it's trying to subvert the legislation and make the contractor accountable.
              ​​​Lord knows it opens the contractor up to risks they shouldn't have to have.

              ​​​​​​
              Actually, Chapter 10 does anticipate some involvement from the contractor because it requires reasonable care, which inevitably involves coordination, and it admits the possibility that, if the contractor provides fraudulent information, the liability can be passed down (well, as we know, HMRC expects this to happen anyway via clawback clauses, but that's another story).

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post

                Actually, Chapter 10 does anticipate some involvement from the contractor because it requires reasonable care, which inevitably involves coordination, and it admits the possibility that, if the contractor provides fraudulent information, the liability can be passed down (well, as we know, HMRC expects this to happen anyway via clawback clauses, but that's another story).
                Thanks. Good reasoning.

                Yes I'm anticipating claw back clauses ?

                It does create a conflicting dynamic for any aspects of the engagement which haven't been discussed.
                Ie to minimise ir35 related risks it's in the contractors interest to choose the most "outside" answers but suspecting that some of those may be unpalatable to the client risks not winning their business
                I suppose one option is to have a meeting to discuss any ambiguities before submission but the nature of the process doesn't exactly encourage that
                Last edited by MrC; 28 October 2022, 17:16.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by MrC View Post

                  Thanks. Good reasoning.

                  Yes I'm anticipating claw back clauses ?

                  It does create a conflicting dynamic for any aspects of the engagement which haven't been discussed.
                  Ie to minimise ir35 related risks it's in the contractors interest to choose the most "outside" answers but suspecting that some of those may be unpalatable to the client risks not winning their business
                  I suppose one option is to have a meeting to discuss any ambiguities before submission but the nature of the process doesn't exactly encourage that
                  All you can really do is represent reality as you would expect to see it. If the client rejects that reality, then you've discovered it upfront, so happy days. If they don't, then happy days. In other words, insofar as IR35 is a necessary consideration and that due diligence must be taken, this QDOS approach makes sense to me, but any process is only as good as the answers given and whether they reflect reality. Ultimately, all this test can do is to get you and the client on the same page about the desired working practices, it doesn't mean that the desired working practices will be met and won't change later.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
                    Actually, Chapter 10 does anticipate some involvement from the contractor because it requires reasonable care, which inevitably involves coordination, and it admits the possibility that, if the contractor provides fraudulent information, the liability can be passed down (well, as we know, HMRC expects this to happen anyway via clawback clauses, but that's another story).
                    It is this part that I and I believe many others have an issue with. No sane contractor could or should ever accept the liability be passed down the chain for a liability that rests with the client. Having been through the process of the QDOS assessment in conjunction with an end client, only to be then presented with a contract which contains the transfer of liability clauses, I ended up walking away. From memory the assessment was £100 or £150 at the time. In many ways a waste of money and for any future contracts outside of IR35, in order to not waste time I'd ask for the contract clauses upfront before I pay for any assessment.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Look at it from the agency side - the fee payer is repsoble for the PAYE tax of an inside IR35 worker.

                      So assume agency payment of £10,000 and tax at 50%.

                      recover the £10,000 from the contractor and the agency ca. deduct £5,000 as a deemed payment, return £5,000 to the worker and the cost to the agency is zero.

                      fail to recover that £10,000 and HMRC will start asking the agency to pay the tax due on a post tax payment of £10,000. Which means the cost to the agency is £10,000.

                      thats a hell of incentive to enforce a claw back clause.
                      Last edited by eek; 29 October 2022, 15:34.
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X