Contract has been retrospectively declared inside IR35

[Northernlass]

Yes what I was getting at is that clients think adding an extra piece of paper to the contract with 'Statement of Work' and a list of deliverables 'fixes' IR35. It doesn't. Properly scoping the contract to enable a lack of direction and control does but this isn't what clients generally are doing. We have many contractors delivering work on an outside IR35 basis without a SOW in the contract - it actually becomes unhelpful as clients think they've added a bit of detail and therefore 'fixed' IR35. Clients who engage in the discussion initially about how to engage a contractor on an outside basis understand that the way they work day to day is important. For me, that is preferable.

Hi CompliaceLady, this is exactly how a consultancy put it across to me a recent potential contract signing, after reviewing the contract I was not comformatable with it. It appeared as a mixture of T&M with fixed deliverables that I had now knowledge of, hadnt been involved what work was required to meet the high level milestons and still expected to sign to ensure the contract is 'outside IR35'. I think I did the right thing in pulling out....shall we all go back perm?

[consultMe]

Just to provide an update...

QDOS weren't really able to help further. They said that although they still stand by their determination of 'outside' it is the prerogative of the end client to do what they want up to the point where they have not paid the intermediary. So I'll have to take the 3 months from April as PAYE via an umbrella.

I've since moved to another outside contract. I've gone through the formality of a QDOS SDS again though now I won't be comfortable until the client has paid the agency invoice, after the quarter is complete I guess.

[ladymuck]

Thanks for the update. I think more of this type of scenario needs to come up to show how terrible the guidance is.

I think it's unreasonable that a client can get several months after engaging resources to decide on what terms those resources are engaged under. I find it very difficult to understand why they don't know what type of resource they need before they go to market.

[eek]

Thanks for the update. I think more of this type of scenario needs to come up to show how terrible the guidance is.

I think it's unreasonable that a client can get several months after engaging resources to decide on what terms those resources are engaged under. I find it very difficult to understand why they don't know what type of resource they need before they go to market.

What's wrong with the guidance - the rules are based on points IPSE campaigned for...

[jamesbrown]

Thanks for the update. I think more of this type of scenario needs to come up to show how terrible the guidance is.

I think it's unreasonable that a client can get several months after engaging resources to decide on what terms those resources are engaged under. I find it very difficult to understand why they don't know what type of resource they need before they go to market.

Thanks, IPSE.

[Lance]

What other recourse options are there for this?
Sue the agency?
What's to stop any customer shafting any supplier by simply deciding at the last minute before payment to 'declare it as inside' just to be total arseholes? Could a customer of WiPro for example do this, and if they did what would WiPro's recourse be?

There is presumably some wording in the legislation that limits when an SDS can even be used. I don't know the legislation very well (at all).

[eek]

What other recourse options are there for this?
Sue the agency?
What's to stop any customer shafting any supplier by simply deciding at the last minute before payment to 'declare it as inside' just to be total arseholes? Could a customer of WiPro for example do this, and if they did what would WiPro's recourse be?

There is presumably some wording in the legislation that limits when an SDS can even be used. I don't know the legislation very well (at all).

How would that impact WiPro - it may impact a contractor or 2 that WiPro is using but that would be it.

[ladymuck]

What other recourse options are there for this?
Sue the agency?
What's to stop any customer shafting any supplier by simply deciding at the last minute before payment to 'declare it as inside' just to be total arseholes? Could a customer of WiPro for example do this, and if they did what would WiPro's recourse be?

There is presumably some wording in the legislation that limits when an SDS can even be used. I don't know the legislation very well (at all).

It's not the agency's fault so you can't sue them.

I think one way to protect yourself is to be very wary of long payment terms and insist on weekly to minimise the risk.

Also, don't take a gig if the SDS isn't available before you sign the contract but that could be harder to achieve.

[eek]

It's not the agency's fault so you can't sue them.

I think one way to protect yourself is to be very wary of long payment terms and insist on weekly to minimise the risk.

Also, don't take a gig if the SDS isn't available before you sign the contract but that could be harder to achieve.

Weekly payment doesn't solve anything if the end client changes your status 3 months later.

Likewise an initial SDS statement doesn't help - as that was covered by "the agency appeals the outside SDS statement" scenario HMRC discussed during the workshops.

Basically accept an outside IR35 role but be careful.

We really should check if Innoaccounts / Offpayroll have a flag for "determination changed to Inside IR35".

[Lance]

How would that impact WiPro - it may impact a contractor or 2 that WiPro is using but that would be it.

That's what I'm trying to understand....
What's to stop a git in accounts or procurement, for no good reason, deciding at the last minute that a bill to be paid to ANY supplier is now deemed as inside IR35? And therefore having a load of tax removed.
I don't understand how this whole SDS thing will work in a B2B relationship. I know it shouldn't but what is it in the legislation that makes doing an SDS a thing? And what stops is being applied incorrectly to any supplier?

I think I might be being really dumb here but I don't understand how this works. My apologies for that.