Going permie.. temporarily? Keeping company open?

[eek]

I think you’re missing the point.

When large numbers of people switch and stay at the same client it becomes easy pickings for HMRC. They no longer need to painstakingly investigate every case.
They have, through mandatory reporting, lists of people who have made the transition.

Tell me, how has lack of resources impacted HMRCs ability to chase the loan scheme tax evoiders?

What reporting? Agency reporting regulations don't ask who the end client is, merely who the worker was and where the money was paid to (unless it's an umbrella "via paye" in which case the agency does not need to report the umbrellas details).

Put it this way I would be far happier to take a permanent role with the client than continue through an umbrella via the same agency.

[Lance]

What reporting? Agency reporting regulations don't ask who the end client is, merely who the worker was and where the money was paid to (unless it's an umbrella "via paye" in which case the agency does not need to report the umbrellas details).

Put it this way I would be far happier to take a permanent role with the client than continue through an umbrella via the same agency.

I thought the agencies did provide the end client.
So less risk than I had thought, but still easier pickings than going after individual PSCs.

But a completely new client/employer will always be the lowest possible risk.

[northernladuk]

I do find it rather surprising we give so much advice on IR35 and then occassionaly a thread like this comes along where the OP ticks all the boxes clearly in a high risk situation and everyone is like ah you'll be fine, you might not get caught.

Surely we should be telling the OP what is wrong with his position and let him decide if he wants to risk hundreds of thousands of pounds by playing dumb.

[eek]

I do find it rather surprising we give so much advice on IR35 and then occassionaly a thread like this comes along where the OP ticks all the boxes clearly in a high risk situation and everyone is like ah you'll be fine, you might not get caught.

Surely we should be telling the OP what is wrong with his position and let him decide if he wants to risk hundreds of thousands of pounds by playing dumb.

There's a risk but my point was an explicit one relating to the information HMRC has to immediate hand..

question are we aware of any historic IR35 cases brought on by turning permanent, HMRC hate people going from PAYE to contract at the same place but I can't remember an IR35 case triggered by someone becoming a permanent member of staff.

Of course the OP could mitigate the risk by closing his limited company down as you are then into the higher thresholds of direct responsibility so keeping the company open does make the risk greater.

[northernladuk]

Possibly but IMO the fact we don't know isn't enough reason to risk a huge amount of money in a situation he will clearly lose if it comes to it. How many of these cases get settled out of court so we don't see it for a start. Then just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it won't happen in the future etc.

The OP is in a world of problems and his only mitigation is he might not get caught. Not great.

I do get what you are saying but giving clueless noobs a get out to continue to act poorly isn't the alway forward IMO.

[eek]

Possibly but IMO the fact we don't know isn't enough reason to risk a huge amount of money in a situation he will clearly lose if it comes to it. How many of these cases get settled out of court so we don't see it for a start. Then just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it won't happen in the future etc.

The OP is in a world of problems and his only mitigation is he might not get caught. Not great.

I do get what you are saying but it plays the OPs situation down and and anyone else that's reading this and thinking ah illnget away with it so won't bother.

But equally we aren't in normal times where our advice would be go and get another contract and leave the client with a mess of their own creation because chances are the replacement contract doesn't exist.

[Old Greg]

Possibly but IMO the fact we don't know isn't enough reason to risk a huge amount of money in a situation he will clearly lose if it comes to it. How many of these cases get settled out of court so we don't see it for a start. Then just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it won't happen in the future etc.

The OP is in a world of problems and his only mitigation is he might not get caught. Not great.

I do get what you are saying but giving clueless noobs a get out to continue to act poorly isn't the alway forward IMO.

Not getting caught is not a mitigation. Closing down the company is a mitigation.

in honesty, I would get the contract and working practices reviewed, close the company down and if possible get insurance personally. Then stop worrying about it.