Liz Truss &IR35

[cojak]

It's not re-open my LTD it's start a new limited.

If cojak wants content for those I'm happy to write it..

The inside to outside 1 is more difficult because it's the complete absence of an SDS that would be the determining factor there...

Very happy.

[cojak]

And I would create a new Ltd if I do another piece of work.

Eight days to prep and run a workshop hardly keeps me inside.

[youngguy]

It's not re-open my LTD it's start a new limited.

If cojak wants content for those I'm happy to write it..

The inside to outside 1 is more difficult because it's the complete absence of an SDS that would be the determining factor there...

And the mess that is CEST. It's slowly come back to me; the bias, the odd questions, the weighting on substitution etc then having HMRC say that they can disregard it when it suits them.

[eek]

And the mess that is CEST. It's slowly come back to me; the bias, the odd questions, the weighting on substitution etc then having HMRC say that they can disregard it when it suits them.

HMRC can't disregard substitution they just don't like it's existence...

Remember there are 3 separate legs for employment:

• Right of substitution
• Mutuality of obligation (which is why furloughs at Xmas are great)
• Supervision / Direction / Control

Any 1 of those is enough to move a contract outside...

[youngguy]

HMRC can't disregard substitution they just don't like it's existence...

Remember there are 3 separate legs for employment:

• Right of substitution
• Mutuality of obligation (which is why furloughs at Xmas are great)
• Supervision / Direction / Control

Any 1 of those is enough to move a contract outside...

My point about disregarding was more wider and around how HMRC stand by CEST...or not depending on whether it gives them the answer they want.
But you are quite right about the pillars. We know them well and it's never been otherwise....but HMRC don't seem to/seem to twist based upon their desired outcomes.

I had no doubt I was outside IR35 back in the day. What I did doubt was my ability to prove this quickly if that letter dropped on the doorstep, thus removing years of unnecessary stress around an investigation.

At that point any win could well be labelled a pyrrhic victory.

That's the issue. I don't mind HMRC looking, but they shouldn't be allowed to proceed without suitable evidence and timeframes should.be capped.

I suspect in reality they know the pain of the process is more of a deterrent than anything else.

[northernladuk]

HMRC can't disregard substitution they just don't like it's existence...

Remember there are 3 separate legs for employment:

• Right of substitution
• Mutuality of obligation (which is why furloughs at Xmas are great)
• Supervision / Direction / Control

Any 1 of those could be enough move a contract outside...

You are probably right but I don't think it's as simple as that statement reads. If that were the case we wouldn't have had all the fear over investigations etc. Just one is possible but only one is enough to take a closer look. A proper outside gig would need all three. QDOS certainly wouldn't agree with the above when doing a contract review.

Also RoS is widely considered a sham so that one alone isn't going to help you. MoO (or lack thereof) is so badly understood most people that 'think' they have (or don't have) it are probably wrong and SDC is a complex one also misunderstood. Look at all the posts we've had where people think they aren't under SDC just because they work from home.

So in theory, done properly you could be right but in reality most people thinking they are safe with just one of those probably need to think again.

But all that is said with the fear of investigation and everything from the old days. Maybe this time it's different.

[Lance]

You are probably right but I don't think it's as simple as that statement reads. If that were the case we wouldn't have had all the fear over investigations etc. Just one is possible but only one is enough to take a closer look. A proper outside gig would need all three. QDOS certainly wouldn't agree with the above when doing a contract review.

Also RoS is widely considered a sham so that one alone isn't going to help you. MoO (or lack thereof) is so badly understood most people that 'think' they have (or don't have) it are probably wrong and SDC is a complex one also misunderstood. Look at all the posts we've had where people think they aren't under SDC just because they work from home.

So in theory, done properly you could be right but in reality most people thinking they are safe with just one of those probably need to think again.

But all that is said with the fear of investigation and everything from the old days. Maybe this time it's different.

I was thing about RoS.
HMRC reckon it's a sham. They used CEST to reinforce that view.

It's now back as a problem for them as they do still have to prove it's a sham. And most clients are more IR35 savvy now, so a better chance that RoS would be honored if questioned. Especially if they (client) aren't risking any liability.

[eek]

I was thing about RoS.
HMRC reckon it's a sham. They used CEST to reinforce that view.

It's now back as a problem for them as they do still have to prove it's a sham. And most clients are more IR35 savvy now, so a better chance that RoS would be honored if questioned. Especially if they (client) aren't risking any liability.

For RoS it depends very much on who you are and where you work.

For skilled work RoS is always going to be hard to argue about because the end client has probably picked you personally for your particular knowledge and skill sets.

However that doesn't really apply for things like HGV drivers where I was speaking to agencies earlier today who rather liked my idea of a substitutes bench of workers to just about tick them over into outside contracts.

But you then have to remember that that market is very wage sensitive so anything that allows agencies to keep drivers is very welcome..

[northernladuk]

I was thing about RoS.
HMRC reckon it's a sham. They used CEST to reinforce that view.

It's now back as a problem for them as they do still have to prove it's a sham. And most clients are more IR35 savvy now, so a better chance that RoS would be honored if questioned. Especially if they (client) aren't risking any liability.

I'm thinking more the other way. They now know what RoS is and it's serious so they'll be more inclined to say no as opposed to just glossing over it and leaving it unaddressed as we did in the past. They didn't care before but now it's something they've thought about they are more likely to stipulate it i.e. no.

That said the RoS is in a standard agency contract the client tends to know nothing about so guess many will just carry on and not confirm it with the client.

[eek]

I'm thinking more the other way. They now know what RoS is and it's serious so they'll be more inclined to say no as opposed to just glossing over it and leaving it unaddressed as we did in the past. They didn't care before but now it's something they've thought about they are more likely to stipulate it i.e. no.

That said the RoS is in a standard agency contract the client tends to know nothing about so guess many will just carry on and not confirm it with the client.

If it's in the agency to contractor contract but not the agency to end client contract then it's a lie. That would be something you would want confirmed early on...