• 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!

Is there any reason to ever declare being inside IR35?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    And what if it turns out you are inside?
    Then that contract is one to be avoided, or the rate needs to be much higher to give the same NET pay.
    I wouldn't take on a contract that knowingly dragged me inside the IR35 scam.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Babbage View Post
      Then that contract is one to be avoided, or the rate needs to be much higher to give the same NET pay.
      I wouldn't take on a contract that knowingly dragged me inside the IR35 scam.
      Really?

      Or could you just choose to treat it as if it was outside and do it anyway?
      What happens in General, stays in General.
      You know what they say about assumptions!

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
        Isn't this something along the lines of tax avoidance and ignorance of the rules is no defence.
        But if you took reasonable steps to determine that your contract was outside of IR35 (and there isn't really any clear guidance from the IR on this) then would you have plausible deniability? If your professional advisor says you are outside IR35 and you take their word for it (not being an expert in complex tax law) then would you get away with just paying the tax owed or would you pay a penalty?

        Does anyone know someone who has been caught with their pants down on an IR35 contract?

        Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
        If you are going to do this you might as well fiddle your expenses, doctor your tax returns and incorrectly fill in you VAT and pray every night?
        Deliberately fiddiling your expenses is quite a different matter.
        Free advice and opinions - refunds are available if you are not 100% satisfied.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Babbage View Post
          Then that contract is one to be avoided, or the rate needs to be much higher to give the same NET pay.
          I wouldn't take on a contract that knowingly dragged me inside the IR35 scam.
          Funny how some people on here have been on the bench for up to a year and here you are swanning about picking and choosing your contracts as you please.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by AngelOfTheNorth View Post
            Funny how some people on here have been on the bench for up to a year and here you are swanning about picking and choosing your contracts as you please.
            Maybe he's good.
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
              Really?

              Or could you just choose to treat it as if it was outside and do it anyway?
              WHS.

              Someone asked about cases. Didn't Dragonfly lose their case? There is a page on the HMRC website with list of them. Even a dancer that said he was contract but he had to be there on time to practice so he lost his case and was deemed employee so its not just IT people.
              'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
                ...In my eyes, 90% of contractors on the board are disguised employees. ...
                Fortunately the courts don't use the MF definition of being a disguised employee, they use the employment law definitions, so lack of moo, substitution etc. are taken into account, and only ever having one client etc. are not (or at worst, are weak indicators).

                If you know you are inside IR35, and claim you are not, that is tax evasion. The trick is to know that you're not, and have evidence to demonstrate that your understanding that you were out is reasonable, even if wrong. That way, you'll only have to pay the tax owing + interest.
                Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                  Fortunately the courts don't use the MF definition of being a disguised employee, they use the employment law definitions, so lack of moo, substitution etc. are taken into account, and only ever having one client etc. are not (or at worst, are weak indicators).

                  If you know you are inside IR35, and claim you are not, that is tax evasion. The trick is to know that you're not, and have evidence to demonstrate that your understanding that you were out is reasonable, even if wrong. That way, you'll only have to pay the tax owing + interest.
                  No of course. But, the reason for the poll in general is. I believe that the probability of having an HMRC audit and challenging a contract that you have called Outside(when it is inside) is low, very low.

                  So based on those probabilities (which i believe to be about a 1 in 7, ie. once in seven) years, then it would be more beneficial to call all contracts Outside, and (feign dumb ignorance and then show that you 'worked out you were outside' using whatever method) just cough up a fine if you ever got caught.
                  What happens in General, stays in General.
                  You know what they say about assumptions!

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Fair point.
                    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                      Fair point.
                      I think someone has hacked MF's account
                      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X