'IR35-friendly' contracts could mean jail

**NotAllThere** · 17 December 2007, 20:07

Is it 20 May 2003 16:30 BST already?

READ THE TIMESTAMP ON THE ARTICLE!!!!

And they didn't know what they were talking about then, either.

**syn** · 17 December 2007, 20:24

Timestamp makes no difference to laws mate. Could you get away with rape in 1997? I think not my friend.

**beaker** · 17 December 2007, 20:50

"If the contract doesn't reflect your company's actual relationship with them and if you dress things up in a way that doesn't reflect reality you are in danger of being guilty of a criminal offence."

There's nothing new here. If you run a legitimate business and your contract reflects your relationship with your client then there's nothing to worry about. Otherwise you might be commiting fraud.

**syn** · 17 December 2007, 20:53

Hmm, it's a tricky one. Thanks for the info Beaker. How can it ever be proven though if you ask your agency to change the contract, they do it and issue the contract for you to sign? Surely it's the agency that hold all the cards here? Or maybe not?

**The Lone Gunman** · 17 December 2007, 20:53

If the contract is deliberately a sham and has been concocted then you could be looking at fraud and tax evasion (or is it avoidance, whichever is illegal) charges. They would have to prove you were complicit.

**syn** · 17 December 2007, 22:20

Originally posted by The Lone Gunman View Post

If the contract is deliberately a sham and has been concocted then you could be looking at fraud and tax evasion (or is it avoidance, whichever is illegal) charges. They would have to prove you were complicit.

That makes perfect sense gunman. So going back to my original question, how can Bauer & Cottrell legally get away with liasing with your agent to secure a more IR35 friendly contract?

**thunderlizard** · 17 December 2007, 22:46

because they assume, as it is reasonable to do, that the contract does reflect the way the work is genuinely done.

**NotAllThere** · 18 December 2007, 06:16

Originally posted by syn View Post

Timestamp makes no difference to laws mate. Could you get away with rape in 1997? I think not my friend.

It isn't law, it's an interpretation of law; an opinion. And since there have been no "namings and shamings" "high-profile cases", in the last four years it's safe to assume it isn't relevant. ( So the timestamp is revelant) If HMRC had thought they could use this, they would have done so.

**Archangel** · 18 December 2007, 08:01

Originally posted by syn View Post

That makes perfect sense gunman. So going back to my original question, how can Bauer & Cottrell legally get away with liasing with your agent to secure a more IR35 friendly contract?

Consider the case where the contract says something like:

"The assignment must be completed by Archangel Gabriel of Celestial Systems Ltd"

If B&C agree with agent to change it to:

"Celestial Systems will supply a consultant of relevent experience to complete the assignment"

This puts the contract out of IR35, reflects the reality and is for perfectly good business reasons. No foul, no penalty.

'IR35-friendly' contracts could mean jail