Contingent worker VS Disguised employee.

[IR35FanClub]

Some red flags are starting to appear on my current contract.

The history is that they’ve tried recruiting permies to build up a new team, but had little success. So there’s a bunch of us contractors backfilling by doing work on various projects, whilst they keep trying to recruit. Normally not a problem.

However Client Co has also been undergoing an organisational restructure. Someone in HR has done a new org chart showing several of us in what are “Contingent Roles”.

This would be bad enough, but they’ve now insisted as we are in those roles we attend an offsite company conference this week which all the permanent staff have to go to.

We’re having a meeting with ClientCo manager to try and explain this type of thing, i.e dictating attendence here and there, could land us with a tax bill for thousands. I’ve always though it was better to actually be outside of IR35, than claim you are and hope you don’t get investigated!

I don’t think we are being awkward for foolish reasons, but the words “disguised employee” keep creeping into my head, and I’m not feeling happy. Might be time to move on to a role where it’s a bit clearer about why we are there?

Any thoughts?

[northernladuk]

backfilling by doing work on various projects, whilst they keep trying to recruit. Normally not a problem.

From that wording I would beg to differ. I hope that these 'various projects' are defined as specific deliverables in your contracts or you really are up tulip creek. You are in what the client sees as enduring roles so unless you are super careful about your deliverables and IR35 investigation will be all over this like a rash IMO. You can say you are doing a short term role now but if something doesn't change quickly they will be able to argue you are doing that role and are caught.

This would be bad enough, but they’ve now insisted as we are in those roles we attend an offsite company conference this week which all the permanent staff have to go to.

There you go, point made.

We’re having a meeting with ClientCo manager to try and explain this type of thing, i.e dictating attendence here and there, could land us with a tax bill for thousands.

I don't agree with this. It is like the 24 month rule thing. Your tax situation is your business, not your clients. You run your business as you see fit. If you want to stay and be at risk of IR35 investigation it is your choice. If you decide to leave due to changes in situation then again it is your choice. I don't think you should air your tax problems in front of a client. You tell him goal posts have changed and the options you have are negotiate a new role and contract in to that new role (which you know is a sham anyway) or advise you have completed your deliverables and will now be moving on.. and then leave. There is a 3rd option where you just continue as is and swallow the risk but I personally think that is a pretty poor option. Deal with it as a business transaction not asking the client to bend due to your responsibilities as a small PSC.

[SueEllen]

The client isn't interested in your tax bill but their profitability.

Now how can you and the other contractors sell a way of working that you want to your client that will increase their profitability and also ensure your tax bill isn't increased?

[IR35FanClub]

The client isn't interested in your tax bill but their profitability.

Now how can you and the other contractors sell a way of working that you want to your client that will increase their profitability and also ensure your tax bill isn't increased?

Not quite they are a gov org, but if you replace profitability with effectiveness, i.e. actually getting some projects finished, then the idea of losing contractors due to problematic working directives won't be great. They've being trying to build a team for over a year, and even a lot of the contractors have left as the place is a mess. That's doesn't bother me, its why I went contracing in the first place, but losing lots of cash becuase of a few quiestions directed at client co's HR department isn't appealing.

The clientco manager thankfully is sympathetic of the issues, but has hands tied. Its from well above. Still we've come up with a workaround on the conference. Which I can't discuss. Wink wink.

More seriously though, am not happy about the org charts so will be paying extra attention to contracts this time. Think it's time I did a bit of substitution - I've thought of a very valid reason to do some, so will just have to cough up some dough to a mate of mine, who I know will give me professional input. There's some stuff I need reviewing by someone who can't have any prior knowledge of the business or the apps. I.e. they need to pretend to be a member of the public and see if they can get what they want. Perfect.

[northernladuk]

More seriously though, am not happy about the org charts so will be paying extra attention to contracts this time. Think it's time I did a bit of substitution - I've thought of a very valid reason to do some, so will just have to cough up some dough to a mate of mine, who I know will give me professional input. There's some stuff I need reviewing by someone who can't have any prior knowledge of the business or the apps. I.e. they need to pretend to be a member of the public and see if they can get what they want. Perfect.

Why not just ask the client if there is a placement bonus to get these spots filled and find someone for them rather than substitution. Less messy.

[cojak]

A Government org?

As of Friday you may well be in IR35 anyway, so all of this maneuvering may be rearranging deck chairs, so to speak...