Work in Banking? Don't worry about the blanket ban you were probably inside all along

[perplexed]

As hinted above by others, it's almost unheard of due to security policies. You make a good point... moot defense if any employee could do the same in principle. However, the fact that I'm providing my own ltd co license crucial to the contract and specifically for the purposes of my "specialist" services (where the clientco lacks expertise) carries some merit?

The point for me in IT is that equipment isn't specialist enough for development. Any laptop can be used if pushing to git repository for example. As a result, for me using own equipment in those instances can only ever be a minor point.

I'd say that in my opinion using own company licence for third party software on client equipment is neither here nor there as a defence against IR35. If it was proprietry software your company had written, that's a separate thing because you'd have to licence it to them directly. What stops client deciding that software would be useful for own permies and getting own licences?

[BR14]

blankets are banned in banks?
oh, dear.

[LetterBox]

I like KissmyaIR35se, they make me laugh, can we keep them? Pleeeeease!

[ladymuck]

blankets are banned in banks?
oh, dear.

Yes. No comforters allowed

[Glencky]

It shows you have financial costs that an employee would not bear but that's not a sufficient defence.

I do think Glencky's post above is the best view on this topic. Be honest about your situation and not go looking for loop holes that will inevitably unravel
https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...st2740431.html

I've come back to the thread hours later to read what's happened since I last posted. I actually laughed aloud at the above - thanks, LadyMuck! I've spent 6 years as a contractor defending my 'inside IR35' choices from any contractors who found out about it, either on here or in real life (and I generally tried not to speak about it because that just gets tiresome! and there was no way to talk about it without sounding holier than thou, because one of my reasons not mentioned on here previously was a genuine belief that if you earn more, you pay more tax - what can I say, I'm the most left wing person in financial services.) About 7 or 8 months ago when 'tulip started getting real' and people started realising April 2020 changes were going to happen, I suddenly got very popular with my contractor colleagues! I was at Nationwide then, and I actually ended up in a large meeting talking to a bunch of contractors about my experiences operating inside and how I expected this all to pan out (which by the way, has been largely as I then expected, although I'd been keeping up with events on here as a lurker so I have you guys to thank for that! I directed them all here. Some may have been responsible for newbie questions after that..)

For what it's worth, note that I said I'd worked in 'financial services' my whole career - not just banking. Banking has actually been a very small part of it, mostly insurance. They are a little different (and, er, I'd rather go with insurance than banking!) but IME they're not different in the ways that are material to IR35, at least in change delivery roles.

I think anyone on this thread (or elsewhere) expressing outrage and clutching at straws needs to actually *read the judgement in full* and understand the established facts and the conclusions drawn from them. If you're not capable of doing that and making an objective assessment setting aside your own views about what is 'fair' or not, and whether anyone is out to get you, you definitely should not be running your own business.

I'm aware not all contractors work in the same kind of environment as me, but over the years I have seen many, many people on here and in real life who clearly do, and who did not recognise the risks they were running (I had a couple of contractors working for me - and yes, they would also have said they 'worked for Glencky'! - before I left permiedom who had been in my organisation for 10 and 7 years respectively and working literally for me for several years.) I don't think this is just a financial services thing - I have friends who work in other large corporates and it seems to be widespread in other industries too.

As for installing your own software on kit belonging to a bank. I call bulltulip on that, I'm afraid. Not out of the question you've managed it somehow but I wouldn't expect it to be long before somebody catches up with you. And if you're doing it, you're almost certainly in breach of contract. Either way, as others have said just because it's an exception, doesn't mean it's an exception that's been made because you're a contractor.

I think there are a lot of people who need to take a dose of acceptance and a long, calm look at how they're operating, and make some risk-based decisions on how they will operate going forward. If I thought everyone operating on the wrong side of things was doing that and taking knowingly considered risks it wouldn't bother me. Unfortunately though I think there are too many who are walking blindly into disaster. I hate to see it.

Final P.S. I've used my own phone on some contracts and my own laptop on one (ancient infrastructure where everyone used Citrix anyway so better Citrix on my own laptop than their cruddy tulipe) I don't think it makes a tremendous amount of difference because the only reason I've been physically able to do it has been their BYOD policies which apply equally to permies as to contractors...

[eek]

Hello and please forgive my apt newbie username. Not particularly shocked at this ruling. We all know as bank contractors we are easy targets and any concept of fairness or rule of law is long gone. That said, I wonder whether anyone has a list of practices they feel might class them "outside" and it may be prudent to unite on these? For example:

1. A lot of my work involves coding. I bring my own software licenses (paid by and registered in my ltd co. name) and install on client co. computers. No other perm employees utilise this particular software.

2. I exempt myself from any enforced Christmas/Easter furlough typically enforced on IT/PM contractors.

Once again another contractor who actually doesn't understand you can't be special to meet British Employment Definitions, you actually need to be eminently replaceable - the only requirement is that you replace yourself rather than the company doing it.

As hinted above by others, it's almost unheard of due to security policies. You make a good point... moot defense if any employee could do the same in principle. However, the fact that I'm providing my own ltd co license crucial to the contract and specifically for the purposes of my "specialist" services (where the clientco lacks expertise) carries some merit?

Um, No...

[Paralytic]

Furlough does not a permietractor make... you must be an exceptional talent for said financial institution to "waive" furlough for you.

Not necessarily. I've been on a project where all contractors in the team were accepted for exemption due to the importance of the project and the business need to deliver by a certain date.

[sadprofessor]

Funny enough, walking away from next contract with the same client solely to please HMRC doesn't make sense form genuine business perspective. If you've established good business relationship - why would you deliberately severe it, that's utter nonsense!

And of course it's important to be honest with yourself (that applies to all areas of life), but as recent developments show - even if you really think of yourself as a contractor, and keep distance form client, this is still an uphill struggle to prove it to HMRC, given its extremely biased position. And whatever you thought of as a valid protection, can easily be rendered useless by next court case.

Not arguing with the facts, would be silly to do that, but can't agree with some posters here mocking "permietractors", while their own decisions don't seem to be a "genuine business" ones.

[cojak]

If I come back contracting I will go inside without a blink of an eye.

(My choice of umbrella will be a different matter, however...)

[eek]

Funny enough, walking away from next contract with the same client solely to please HMRC doesn't make sense form genuine business perspective. If you've established good business relationship - why would you deliberately severe it, that's utter nonsense!

And of course it's important to be honest with yourself (that applies to all areas of life), but as recent developments show - even if you really think of yourself as a contractor, and keep distance form client, this is still an uphill struggle to prove it to HMRC, given its extremely biased position. And whatever you thought of as a valid protection, can easily be rendered useless by next court case.

Not arguing with the facts, would be silly to do that, but can't agree with some posters here mocking "permietractors", while their own decisions don't seem to be a "genuine business" ones.

Surely that depends on what you were doing before (claiming to be inside / outside) and how the client perceives you (a member of staff or an independent resource)?

Inside before (your decision) inside after April (client decision) -> Not a problem
Outside before (your decision) outside after April (client decision) -> Not a problem
Outside before (your decision) inside after April (client decision) -> What actually changed in April?

Now a lot of what you do if you are in the last category depends on your attitude to risk and the paperwork you have. But there must be a reason why HMRC went after this particular case when they have ignored IT contractors for approximately the last 10 years...

And do you really have a good business relationship with your end client if they see you as (just another / almost) an employee - and are happy to throw you under HMRC's tax bus..