Going back to old client, now inside IR35?

[northernladuk]

I will go back to the advice I hinted at earlier that S3 used while sorting out the public sector changes - use a different agency.

The paper trail HMRC has only goes as far as agencies it doesn't extend further than that - so new agency, nothing for HMRC to work from.

Interesting. I noticed you'd said it before but didn't think it was as black and white as that. Do you think HMRC will go back to other forums of investigating? Seb indicated investigations came out of changes to the account, missed tax, closing company etc. If, for example, the OP manages to get back in to the bank via a new agency, do you think there is still risks like the old days or is this change of agent pretty much as safe as can be?

[eek]

Interesting. I noticed you'd said it before but didn't think it was as black and white as that. Do you think HMRC will go back to other forums of investigating? Seb indicated investigations came out of changes to the account, missed tax, closing company etc. If, for example, the OP manages to get back in to the bank via a new agency, do you think there is still risks like the old days or is this change of agent pretty much as safe as can be?

Safe as can be as HMRC doesn't have a starting point beyond asking the Bank directly - and if asked that question I suspect HR would say we don't know who these people are as they aren't employees.

[LouC]

Thank you everyone, you have pretty much just given voice to all the arguments going round my head! The bank do use a few different agencies (and that was offered to me in April), so that could work. I'll see what they come back to me with, if anything. Thanks again!

[northernladuk]

Thank you everyone, you have pretty much just given voice to all the arguments going round my head! The bank do use a few different agencies (and that was offered to me in April), so that could work. I'll see what they come back to me with, if anything. Thanks again!

Why aren't you leaving to go find yourself outside work? You'll be taking a 35+% cut in income unless they are increasing your inside rate? I get what Eek says but to be so hooked on a client with these risks (or not it seems) just doesn't seem the right thing to do unless there is a very good reason. We are contractors, we move clients regularly so this just seems a good time to be a contractor.

[eek]

Why aren't you leaving to go find yourself outside work? You'll be taking a 35+% cut in income unless they are increasing your inside rate? I get what Eek says but to be so hooked on a client with these risks (or not it seems) just doesn't seem the right thing to do unless there is a very good reason. We are contractors, we move clients regularly so this just seems a good time to be a contractor.

Because (from the OP's first post on this thread.

The market's busy, but a lot of the jobs seem very niche, and the ones I could apply for are a lower rate than my old gig.

[northernladuk]

Because (from the OP's first post on this thread.

I think there is a lot of permie thinking going on here, not that it matters if they stay inside but a lot of the jobs seeming niche? You mean specialist? I don't see many niche ones at all. All the standard roles are there with specific requirements which is normal in contracting. Now that the gig is inside those rates (if they are outside) have to become more comparable now?

[mogga71]

Why aren't you leaving to go find yourself outside work? You'll be taking a 35+% cut in income unless they are increasing your inside rate? I get what Eek says but to be so hooked on a client with these risks (or not it seems) just doesn't seem the right thing to do unless there is a very good reason. We are contractors, we move clients regularly so this just seems a good time to be a contractor.

I should imagine that if he/she has experience in the financial sector and wants to continue with that then all (or vast majority) of the clients are going to have a ban on PSCs anyway?