Permie->Contract-Geographical Considerations

[dundeedude]

I don't know what makes you think that. Considering you yourself say you've read all the material you can and you don't understand it, what on earth brings you to that conclusion?

Umbrella's work for many people, but I've never bought into the whole "ltd is a lot of work and hassle" patter. There is a bit of admin yes, but it's not difficult.

I should have added 'in the Aberdeenshire area', sorry. Working for six months in a contract, followed by some hefty studying, doesn't seem like such a bad idea for the forthcoming twelve months in my situation.

Awaiting an email containing the contract wording, which I can then forward to have legally reviewed. However, even with a tight outside IR35 contract, I know of many people who use company gyms and canteens for free. How would HMRC ascertain if you were actually using those benefits as a pseudo-employee? It would be client's word against yours in many cases I would have thought, not that most clients would seemingly wish to shaft a contractor without reason.

[malvolio]

It would be client's word against yours in many cases I would have thought, not that most clients would seemingly wish to shaft a contractor without reason.

Absolute first rule of contracting - the client is not on your side. They don't give a stuff about you personally and have no interest outside what work they are paying you to deliver. IR35 cases have been lost because the client didn't support the contractor's view of the relationship (and in one case flatly contradicted it)

Second rule - bending rules and laws on the basis that they may well not be spotted is a terminally stupid idea.

Make sure you understand both before you go believing you know what you're doing.

[northernladuk]

I should have added 'in the Aberdeenshire area', sorry. Working for six months in a contract, followed by some hefty studying, doesn't seem like such a bad idea for the forthcoming twelve months in my situation.

Awaiting an email containing the contract wording, which I can then forward to have legally reviewed. However, even with a tight outside IR35 contract, I know of many people who use company gyms and canteens for free. How would HMRC ascertain if you were actually using those benefits as a pseudo-employee? It would be client's word against yours in many cases I would have thought, not that most clients would seemingly wish to shaft a contractor without reason.

Have you read the LJL case? Client came clean and hung him out to dry royally in doing so. It is nothing to do with shafting or defending. They say how it is. Bear in mind it is how they treat you that makes the difference I don't think it is your word against theirs at all.

[TheFaQQer]

Have you read the LJL case?

No, but I have read the JLJ Services case.

[TheFaQQer]

It would be client's word against yours in many cases I would have thought, not that most clients would seemingly wish to shaft a contractor without reason.

No, it's HMRC's assessment of the situation based on the facts presented that matters. If you say one thing and the client says another, then HMRC are more likely to give stronger weight to the view that supports theirs.

Even if the client doesn't want to shaft you, anything they say may hang you.

e.g.

HMRC: Please describe the work that Mr. Dude did for you?
Client: Mr. Dude was engaged to do some work for us and work on project XYZ.

is significantly weighed against the contractor than

HMRC: Please describe the work that Mr. Dude did for you?
Client: We engaged Dundee Dude Ltd. to do some work for us and work on project XYZ. Mr. Dude was their representative on-site.

The two answers provide the same information, and they are both correct. By giving the first response, HMRC have something from the client that helps show you were an employee, though. It's not something that the client deliberately says to shaft you, it's just that since they don't know IR35, they tend to use terms which are common to employment.

[northernladuk]

No, but I have read the JLJ Services case.

You are mad at me arne't you....

[TheFaQQer]

You are mad at me arne't you....

aren't

[dundeedude]

Have you read the LJL case? Client came clean and hung him out to dry royally in doing so. It is nothing to do with shafting or defending. They say how it is. Bear in mind it is how they treat you that makes the difference I don't think it is your word against theirs at all.

I have indeed read a few summaries of this case. It seemed to me that the lad worked for the same company for many years, and at a certain point of time some implied terms and working conditions changed; which is understandable if he's worked for the same place for a very long time, and has not taken care to be highly meticulous in his workings.

[dundeedude]

No, it's HMRC's assessment of the situation based on the facts presented that matters. If you say one thing and the client says another, then HMRC are more likely to give stronger weight to the view that supports theirs.

Even if the client doesn't want to shaft you, anything they say may hang you.

e.g.

is significantly weighed against the contractor than

The two answers provide the same information, and they are both correct. By giving the first response, HMRC have something from the client that helps show you were an employee, though. It's not something that the client deliberately says to shaft you, it's just that since they don't know IR35, they tend to use terms which are common to employment.

Couldn't I avert any suspicious by:

1) Get contract reviewed by specialist, recommend changes
2) Get client to sign some working conditions document
3) Maintain professional etiquette and employee separation from the company where possible
4) Change clients every ~6 months

Shouldn't that be enough?

[malvolio]

Couldn't I avert any suspicious by:

1) Get contract reviewed by specialist, recommend changes

Obviously, until you enough knowledge to do it for yourself. But don't "recommend", negotiate.

2) Get client to sign some working conditions document

You can ask. 99% of them won't sign, since it subverts their contractual position. They also fondly believe that (a) the contract covers that already and (b) you are just a another employee, but with a funny salary scheme.

3) Maintain professional etiquette and employee separation from the company where possible

Employee? Permie thinking. You should do this anyway. You're the expert, or you wouldn't have the job. You are no longer a worker, you are selling services

4) Change clients every ~6 months

Why? And why do think you have the option?

Shouldn't that be enough?

No. HTH


Seriously, you still haven't twigged the fundamental change in how you work and how you approach it.