New IR35 'Friendly' contract? Dodgy agents?

[velcro]

Has anyone had any firm feedback from QDOS or the like on these contract clauses which try to shift IR35 liability?
It'd be interesting if after signing one of these contracts, whether they would honour any IR35 insurance if there was an investigation. Might the underwriters say that you had invalidated any insurance in the event of an investigation? We all know that insurance companies will say/do anything to get out of paying up...

[SussexSeagull]

As noted elsewhere in this thread, it moved the tax risk to the supply client, not the sum total of all risk, and HMRC only care about their taxes and penalties and everything else is just "commercial risk" to them (about which they know absolutely feck all). Now, as before, the supply chain can try to protect itself against tax loss. This is hardly a new thing and you can accept it or not and try to mitigate against it or not. As you say, if YourCo is gone, they can't do anything about it, unless the contract transfers the liability to you personally (watch out for that), but there are more short-term risks too (the approach they are taking to SDSs is fubared).

As you say, it's worth noting the HMRC won't actually come after you instead of the end client due to anything put in a contract.

[jamesbrown]

Kind of surprised by the 'school of hard knocks' and 'what can you do about it' approach people are adopting. A change in the law moved the risk to the end client. Pain in the backside though it is, it is the will of the democratically elected government and shouldn't be overridden by a clause in a commercial contract.

By tagging this onto a contract the risk is moving back to us giving us the worst of both worlds.

No idea how enforceable it is but would be minded to wind down my Ltd after each Outside Contract if that was in the contract on the grounds they can't go after something that isn't there if there is an investigation years in the future.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, it moved the tax risk to the supply client, not the sum total of all risk, and HMRC only care about their taxes and penalties and everything else is just "commercial risk" to them (about which they know absolutely feck all). Now, as before, the supply chain can try to protect itself against tax loss. This is hardly a new thing and you can accept it or not and try to mitigate against it or not. As you say, if YourCo is gone, they can't do anything about it, unless the contract transfers the liability to you personally (watch out for that), but there are more short-term risks too (the approach they are taking to SDSs is fubared).

[SussexSeagull]

Kind of surprised by the 'school of hard knocks' and 'what can you do about it' approach people are adopting. A change in the law moved the risk to the end client. Pain in the backside though it is, it is the will of the democratically elected government and shouldn't be overridden by a clause in a commercial contract.

By tagging this onto a contract the risk is moving back to us giving us the worst of both worlds.

No idea how enforceable it is but would be minded to wind down my Ltd after each Outside Contract if that was in the contract on the grounds they can't go after something that isn't there if there is an investigation years in the future.

[RobScott]

The agency is just trying to cover their risk. Dodgy? no. you can't have a cake and eat it too

[ShandyDrinker]

HMRC don't understand what they are unleashing on the business community.

On the contrary, HMRC understands exactly what they are unleashing on the business community.

[eek]

I'm seeing a lot of this kind of hard-nosed contract wording flying about. Not really surprising given that everyone is now terrified of HMRC and their guidance is for the most part unworkable or unreasonable.

If you are a consultant/expert nobody knows what you are going to do until you get into the thick of the problem anyway - that's why they hired you.

In the end, IR35 is concerned with actual working practice and thus a lot of the contract is irrelevant or unenforceable. HMRC don't understand what they are unleashing on the business community.

HMRC don't care - the issue (and fear) was the increasing use of PSC to avoid employing people and avoiding paying Employer NI.

the new version of IR35 ticks that box - the fact the rest of it is utterly insane isn't a concern for the people in HMRC who are responsible for it is above their pay grade.

[SussexSeagull]

So in summary none of us actually know.

[TwoWolves]

I'm seeing a lot of this kind of hard-nosed contract wording flying about. Not really surprising given that everyone is now terrified of HMRC and their guidance is for the most part unworkable or unreasonable.

If you are a consultant/expert nobody knows what you are going to do until you get into the thick of the problem anyway - that's why they hired you.

In the end, IR35 is concerned with actual working practice and thus a lot of the contract is irrelevant or unenforceable. HMRC don't understand what they are unleashing on the business community.

[SteelyDan]

They did a blanket ban AND also issued an inside determination? Are you sure?

Ah apologies, I see where you're going. I'll try & clarify; the organisation adopted the stance that all PSCs would be inside (yes, they'd still work with them but only on an 'inside' basis), and over-ruled the previously done outside SDS with the person's "line manager".