I hate IR35 Status Questionairres!!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Length of contract is irrelevant to an IR35 investigation (with the exception of an incredibly short contract helping to put you outside).

In theory, yes, but inevitably any association lasting so long with a single client will in many cases lead to practises meaning you are firmly caught by IR35.

[The Wikir Man]

In theory, yes, but inevitably any association lasting so long with a single client will in many cases lead to practises meaning you are firmly caught by IR35.

And in many cases, the length of time spent working with one client will not lead to any change in the circumstances that might lead to being inside IR35.

If you have been working with a client for a long time, then many will be more amenable to more flexible working arrangements, and substitution of resource, than a client who has been working with you for a few weeks.

[ASB]

Yeah, there's always one who tells a story like this. IMO, if you're working that number of years for the same client, you're part and parcel of their organisation. Simple as.

Possibly. However, I suspect the working practices my company engaged in were further away from D+C that a lot of folks currently are. A lot of work was fixed price, most done offsite, there was also a certain amount of subcontracting going on with multiple concurrent projects for different areas of the business.

You seem to be saying that a long term relationship = IR35 caught. (Or at least should mean it).

Should an accountant who happens to do a majority of their work for one substantial client be IR35 fodder?

Just because I happened to have one major client for a very long period did not make me part and parcel of their organisation.

[Qdos Contractor]

HMRC will usually see a lengthy engagement as an opportunity to argue that you are part and parcel, but it can be countered fairly easily if you are still genuinely retain your independence in all other ways. Why end a mutually beneficial business agreement just to satisfy a legislation? It simply shows good business acumen.

It doesn't make things easier, but it isn't generally pivotal. Of course, the longer you're at a client the higher the potential liability if you're caught (I'm guessing the £90k contractor referred to earlier could have been Dragonfly?).

[northernladuk]

HMRC will usually see a lengthy engagement as an opportunity to argue that you are part and parcel, but it can be countered fairly easily if you are still genuinely retain your independence in all other ways. Why end a mutually beneficial business agreement just to satisfy a legislation? It simply shows good business acumen.

The theory on this is terrific but I would happily make a large bet that most people at site for 6+ years have forgotten that and have their feet as far under the desk as most permies. I have seen this happen and there have been some high profile examples. Not least that one where the bloke contracted at Oracle (or HP) for 8 years and then tried to take them to an industrial tribunal for finishing him with a weeks notice as per the contract. There have been a few people on here frothing at the mouth being finished on year + ones as well.

Takes a lot of business accumen to keep sight of what you are for that length of time and looking at a lot of contractors I doubt it is common IMO.

[ASB]

The theory on this is terrific but I would happily make a large bet that most people at site for 6+ years have forgotten that and have their feet as far under the desk as most permies. I have seen this happen and there have been some high profile examples. Not least that one where the bloke contracted at Oracle (or HP) for 8 years and then tried to take them to an industrial tribunal for finishing him with a weeks notice as per the contract. There have been a few people on here frothing at the mouth being finished on year + ones as well.

Takes a lot of business accumen to keep sight of what you are for that length of time and looking at a lot of contractors I doubt it is common IMO.

I certainly couldn't disagree with your basic assertion that most in a long term relationship would fail - but that is not a function of the length. It's a function of how they may end up running the business relationship.

I think the case you refer to was O'Murphy v HP. However it is important to note that the definition of employee at an ET is different (basically wider) than that relevant to tax legislation. I am not suggesting his case had any merit or otherwise - just that it was under different definitions.

From this very site: http://www.contractoruk.com/news/00455.html

There was also one case (can't find details) where at an employment status investigation a chap - who was arguably part and parcel of a golf club having been there for 20 some odd years - was deemed self employed (under the IR56 tests I think).

Equally there was a case where a golf pro who gave casual lessons etc was determined to be an employee.

So, nothing is certain. Certainly length may be an indication of potential caught, but it is only an indication. Long term business practices can be such that the risk of being caught is much more substantial, but from a commercial point of view is it not sensible to try and cultivate those relationships in a long term manner?

If somebody is worried that they may be caught because of duration that is mainly a reflection on the way way they choose to conduct their business.