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

[perplexed]

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.

True, but factor in everything else they have written...

[sadprofessor]

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..

I don't think HMRC were ignoring IT - rather, they were looking for ways to get to them (us) all these years, and now bringing it all home.

I personally pursue the outside/outside route, but still waiting for the result of client assessment (done through Qdos). And while I do have good relationship with them, they as a business don't want any hassle with HMRC - and that's how HMRC are achieving what they're after, by intimidating everybody and making cases like this one prominent.
And if client decides risk is not worth it and deems me inside, I'll just have to close the company asap - it's cursed...

[eek]

I don't think HMRC were ignoring IT - rather, they were looking for ways to get to them (us) all these years, and now bringing it all home.

I personally pursue the outside/outside route, but still waiting for the result of client assessment (done through Qdos). And while I do have good relationship with them, they as a business don't want any hassle with HMRC - and that's how HMRC are achieving what they're after, by intimidating everybody and making cases like this one prominent.
And if client decides risk is not worth it and deems me inside, I'll just have to close the company asap - it's cursed...

It wouldn't surprise me if HMRC deemed closing the company fraud were they to start chasing money - that could be justification enough to pierce the corporate veil...

- but note I trust HMRC as far as I could throw the world's biggest elephant...

[LondonManc]

HMRC will focus on those who stay outside for now then in a few years time go back to those who flipped with the same end client. I mean why waste energy on those that have already been run aground when there are active tax dodgers that need to be hunted down.

I disagree. They won't go after those that are outside if they've got CEST tool approval, working practices, QDOS insurance, etc. The client is liable so they won't be going after the contractor at all.

Similarly, it also probably means that any insurance that Joe contractor has (including the IPSE offering and QDOS) is not worth the paper is written on as well.

I'd say that its worth is in the fact that the contractor has exercised due care and attention in determining that they are outside rather than proclaiming it themselves because it's financially better.

Only the last sentence of that comes close to proving he's an employee, and it's still arguable in this case.

It's ambiguous - if it means that the defendant has stated that they'd need a new contract with new deliverables issuing then it sounds like the sort of thing that a contractor should do. I guess it depends how you read it.

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.

1. Interesting one this - will they need a licence to continue with this once you're gone?

2. Not a determination either way - a furlough is a sign of exposure to financial risk so can be seen as good. Its strength appears to be very much dependent upon whether contractors are treated the same as permies; in my experience, permies tend to have a choice for the most part of what holidays they book over Christmas (albeit Christmas on a Wednesday has generally dictated a Friday office shutdown).

Bringing in own equipment imo is something that differs from sector to sector. Client has global ban on external equipment connecting to it's infrastructure, then I don't see that HMRC could argue against that.

The forum is full of ideas along with the recognition that every contract is different and working practices are key.

Correct - I've taken kit in before now but it's never been allowed to connect to anything except the guest wifi.

[perplexed]

[QUOTE=LondonManc;2741054]I disagree. They won't go after those that are outside if they've got CEST tool approval, working practices, QDOS insurance, etc. The client is liable so they won't be going after the contractor at all.[/QUOTE

HMRC will have backlog for last few years to work through; those working for clients who blanket banned will almost certainly find themselves targetted. Sound strategy for contractors to take end clients names off social media accounts...

[northernladuk]

You aren't a coder are you Perplexed??

[perplexed]

You aren't a coder are you Perplexed??

That's one view, not sure many would agree with it...

[kissmyaIR35se]

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..

I do wonder, what is it with Brits and their pathetic self-hating non-exceptionalism?

[eek]

I do wonder, what is it with Brits and their pathetic self-hating non-exceptionalism?

Um, I was explaining UK employment law, if you are special and the company wants you and only you then you are not outside IR35 but are in reality probably well and truly inside

[jayn200]

Um, I was explaining UK employment law, if you are special and the company wants you and only you then you are not outside IR35 but are in reality probably well and truly inside

Sure you can still be outside. Lots of scenarios where the company only wants a specific individual to work on it. It's quite normal for a client to request a specific individual works on whatever contracted works. It doesn't mean the company has any control over the individual and they can still be working to a SOW.