• 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!

Public Sector IR35 New Requirement.

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

    #11
    "The one ray of hope. Does your contract have the right of substitution?"

    It does, however it does state the the client has to approve the substitution. The dev manager here said he would agree to a substitution so that might be an option. I have a friend I could sub contract a portion of the work to.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by Defstun View Post
      Hi all,

      I find IR35 very confusing, on one hand I think I'm outside of it, I have different clients, provide my own equipment, provide my own training, have indemnity/liability insurance and have a business bank account.
      Do you have multiple concurrent clients?
      "Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by Defstun View Post
        "the client has to approve the substitution. The dev manager here said he would agree to a substitution so that might be an option. I have a friend I could sub contract a portion of the work to.
        That might be an option then. Find a nicely defined piece of code that your friend could do a better job of than you and arrange to sub contract it out. You can then do HMRC's Business Entity Test and show the results to the client thus satisfying them that you are not IR35 caught. Of course, if this goes wrong and the client refuses then you are stuffed.

        My experience of the legal process is that they like to start with a very aggressive opening shot like this so you take them seriously and to provoke a detailed response from you. If you can come back with a detailed explanation of how you are not IR35 caught then they may accept this and back off.

        Do you have legal representation from the likes of the PCG, QDOS or AbbeyTax that you can engage to act on your behalf?
        Free advice and opinions - refunds are available if you are not 100% satisfied.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Wanderer View Post
          Do you have legal representation from the likes of the PCG, QDOS or AbbeyTax that you can engage to act on your behalf?
          Yes, I am a member of PCG and I am currently engaged with AbbeyTax for a full review at the moment. Just filling out the questionnaire.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Defstun View Post
            2: Terminate the current contract, amend it to be IR35 compliant and sign it again (client willing).

            Probably the most desirable option.
            Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
            And least plausible.
            I'd say it's even counter productive.

            Don't just take my opinion for it. Google "Dragonfly IR35" and read the judgement text. This chap did something very similar - amended successive contracts to remove bad IR35 clauses - and he got nailed in court for it.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by centurian View Post
              I'd say it's even counter productive.

              Don't just take my opinion for it. Google "Dragonfly IR35" and read the judgement text. This chap did something very similar - amended successive contracts to remove bad IR35 clauses - and he got nailed in court for it.
              Just what I was thinking...
              nomadd liked this post

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by centurian View Post
                I'd say it's even counter productive.

                Don't just take my opinion for it. Google "Dragonfly IR35" and read the judgement text. This chap did something very similar - amended successive contracts to remove bad IR35 clauses - and he got nailed in court for it.
                Thanks for that. I have just read several pages describing the judgement. Worrying stuff, especially this quote:

                Special Commissioner, Charles Hellier concluded:"Overall I find nothing which points strongly to the conclusion that Mr Bessell would have been in business on his own account; by contrast when I stand back and look at the overall picture I see someone who worked fairly regular hours during each engagement, who worked on parts of a project which were allocated to him as part of the AA's teams, who was integrated into the AA's business, and who had a role similar to that of a professional employee. Mr Bessell did not get paid for, or go to work to provide, a specific product; instead he provided his services to the AA to be used by them in testing the parts of a project which from time to time were allocated to him. He was engaged in relation to the work to be done on a specific project but not to deliver anything other than his services in providing testing in relation to that project. In my opinion he would have been an employee had he been directly engaged by the AA."

                I am paid to provide a specific product, I am not working on any other day to day tasks nor am I asked to stop what I am doing to help out other members of the team etc.

                However, I would say that out of the 15 contractors I know, all of them would fall into the same category as the one above preposed by the Special Commissioner. How many of you have worked in a similar manner to the one described above? Perhaps all the contractors I know are naive when it comes to IR35 but I would surmise that how they work is the norm.

                What about testers? They don't deliver a product, they are there to test the system created by other employees/contractors. The very nature of their work seems opposed to IR35. Unless an acceptable 'product' is a report based on the result of testing a system.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by Defstun View Post
                  However, I would say that out of the 15 contractors I know, all of them would fall into the same category as the one above preposed by the Special Commissioner. How many of you have worked in a similar manner to the one described above? Perhaps all the contractors I know are naive when it comes to IR35 but I would surmise that how they work is the norm.
                  Which is why we are on the backfoot fighting for all this and people on this forum get annoyed at other contractors poor approach to their work. I know I do.

                  In my experience at the last two gigs the number of disguised employee type contractors that know squat about IR35 and make no effort to look like, act and be a contractor running a business far outweighs the guys that do. What really pisses me off it then makes the guys trying to do the right thing look like a trouble maker when he tries to stick to his contract etc.

                  Surmising what they do is the norm without understanding your situation and running your affairs properly is probably part of the problem we have.

                  Rant over. Soapbox stored...
                  'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Don't rely too much on Dragonfly, it was a bit of a one off in many senses (not least the judge's cheery dismissal of the client's admission that they had no intention of honouring the contractual clauses the'd agreed to, and a strong MOO indicator could be ignored...). Ultimately the case was lost on D&C, where the client was telling the worker what to work on next, but you only need one of the three of D&C, MOO and RoS to be present and two of them were. The decision was appealable had Dragonfly not lost interest in fighting any more.

                    But the one thing it did prove was that the reality on the ground and the contract had to align properly.
                    Blog? What blog...?

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      In my experience at the last two gigs the number of disguised employee type contractors that know squat about IR35 and make no effort to look like, act and be a contractor running a business far outweighs the guys that do.
                      Agreed. The problem from my side is this. I became a contractor because I wanted to experience the satisfaction of delivering products to clients. The fact that the clients and products change frequently is appealing, it keeps the work varied and challenging.

                      When you first become a contractor it's natural to ask other contractors you are working next to how they operate, what they do in situation x etc. But if all the contractors you meet are naive about IR35 and give you false information, how are you supposed to decipher good information when you're just starting out? Why wouldn't I trust the answers of contractors who have been in the game for years?

                      I now know that the majority are naive r.e. IR35 and I have learnt more from being on this forum in two days than I have in the last two years. From receiving answers from contractors along the way I feel I have been fed a false reality of how contractors should operate.

                      That being said, I have always operated as if I am a company creating products for clients, that was my idea in the outset. If I am deemed to be in IR35 then it is my own fault for not showing 'due diligence' in the pre process of signing contracts etc. Not due to intentionally trying to avoid tax.

                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      What really pisses me off it then makes the guys trying to do the right thing look like a trouble maker when he tries to stick to his contract etc.
                      Agreed. I was considered the black sheep in my previous contract when I stood up for myself. The other two contractors simply did what the company was asking them to do and thought I was odd for rejecting it.


                      Thanks for all the responses and input, I feel I have a lot more knowledge about IR35 now.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X