Originally posted by Lance
View Post
- 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!
New IR35 'Friendly' contract? Dodgy agents?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by SussexSeagull View Post
By clients deciding if they want to engage a contractor or an employee.
You'd be happy with the client changing your SDS? As they are entitled to do.
I understand your point, but it won't stand up to reality. HR/legal/procurement/finance make these decisions. The managers/handers/whatever will work in their own way. How often have we come across a client that wants to exercise full control?
And how often to 'contractors' suck it up?
When HR/legal/procurement/finance have to carry the can for the liability they're not going to take risks.See You Next TuesdayComment
-
Originally posted by SussexSeagull View Post
By clients deciding if they want to engage a contractor or an employee.Comment
-
I think it would be unlikely to get a contract through any agency whereby the client and agency take full liability for the tax that the contractor is liable for. In other words if you are found retrospectively to be inside IR35 you will need to foot the bill. That's basically what is being stated. No harm in getting it reviewed or refusing, but I suspect to get around clauses like these the answer will be to go inside IR35 from the outset.I'm alright JackComment
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
In an ideal world you have a client who understands what they need, procures the right sort of resource and knows how to manage them. In reality, most contractors are a bum on a seat, brought in to fill a gap.Comment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostI think it would be unlikely to get a contract through any agency whereby the client and agency take full liability for the tax that the contractor is liable for. In other words if you are found retrospectively to be inside IR35 you will need to foot the bill. That's basically what is being stated. No harm in getting it reviewed or refusing, but I suspect to get around clauses like these the answer will be to go inside IR35 from the outset.
As we all know investigations can happen years after the event by which time the employee/worker/contractor could be long gone and the Limited company could have been legitimately dissolved. Not sure if the HMRC come knocking a clause in a contract is going to cause them too many sleepless nights in the quest for what they see as their money.Comment
-
Originally posted by SussexSeagull View Post
I am not a legal expert in such matters - and if I was this hasn't been tested in court yet - but the point of the rule change is the end client are responsible. Can that be overruled in a contract?
As we all know investigations can happen years after the event by which time the employee/worker/contractor could be long gone and the Limited company could have been legitimately dissolved. Not sure if the HMRC come knocking a clause in a contract is going to cause them too many sleepless nights in the quest for what they see as their money.
The thing is that the clause mentioned isn't trying to transfer liability to the contractors LTD.
It's indemnifying the agency against any losses made. A subtle but important difference.
Will it hold up in law? No idea. That's why my first suggestion was to seek professional advice.See You Next TuesdayComment
-
Originally posted by SussexSeagull View Post
I am not a legal expert in such matters - and if I was this hasn't been tested in court yet - but the point of the rule change is the end client are responsible. Can that be overruled in a contract?
As we all know investigations can happen years after the event by which time the employee/worker/contractor could be long gone and the Limited company could have been legitimately dissolved. Not sure if the HMRC come knocking a clause in a contract is going to cause them too many sleepless nights in the quest for what they see as their money.
In the first instance, the Fee Payer is liable for all taxes, penalties and interest due, absent fraud by another party, but anyone in the supply chain above the PSC may ultimately be found liable and pursued under the transfer of debt provisions, even in the absence of fraud.
Bottom line, the supply chain above the PSC is going to pay out first and will then need to attempt to recover the money, if at all possible. HMRC only cares that they're covered, and this is why sensible clients will opt to avoid PSCs altogether.
Contract clauses are very much downstream of that and whether those contract clauses will stick (in terms of recovering any money from the PSC) is very debatable.Comment
-
Originally posted by SussexSeagull View Post
I am not a legal expert in such matters - and if I was this hasn't been tested in court yet - but the point of the rule change is the end client are responsible. Can that be overruled in a contract?
As we all know investigations can happen years after the event by which time the employee/worker/contractor could be long gone and the Limited company could have been legitimately dissolved. Not sure if the HMRC come knocking a clause in a contract is going to cause them too many sleepless nights in the quest for what they see as their money.Last edited by BlasterBates; 29 March 2021, 13:33.I'm alright JackComment
-
I'll make the same point I made a while back when talking about when the SDS is run...
That in most cases, especially BigCo client ones, the contractor and their line manager (you know what I mean) who know the working arrangements in reality, won't be the ones making the decision. So it's all a bit random anyway.
That said, it's down to the contractor to nail these sorts of things at interview stage, not on joining.Blog? What blog...?Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Andrew Griffith MP says Tories would reform IR35 Oct 7 00:41
- New umbrella company JSL rules: a 2026 guide for contractors Oct 5 22:50
- Top 5 contractor compliance challenges, as 2025-26 nears Oct 3 08:53
- Joint and Several Liability ‘won’t retire HMRC's naughty list’ Oct 2 05:28
- What contractors can take from the Industria Umbrella Ltd case Sep 30 23:05
- Is ‘Open To Work’ on LinkedIn due an IR35 dropdown menu? Sep 30 05:57
- IR35: Control — updated for 2025-26 Sep 28 21:28
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 20:17
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 08:17
- ‘Subdued’ IT contractor jobs market took third tumble in a row in August Sep 25 08:07
Comment