HMRC NHS guidelines being instituted! Abandon ship!

[bluetoaster]

I see that QDOS now provide a public sector IR35 package to help cover this which I would take on if I took a public sector contract now.

and no, I don't work for QDOS

[bobspud]

Who are your lot? NHS, BBC?

A mod department.

[bobspud]

It's obviously a pain, but all of the public sector end clients we have dealt with are accepting evidence of a contractor's status from independent specialists, like us. The initial concern was that all public sector bodies would demand a contract review from HMRC, which simply wouldn't have been workable.

We've basically given contractors a full review of both the contract and working practices and then put it all in a 'certificate' type pack to pass to the end client. We've sent dozens of these out and haven't had any problems.

You can await the fall out of one of the clients in the West Country they published their guidelines over Christmas and said only an HMRC review would be accepted...

[NotAllThere]

My lot started this witch hunt just before chrimbo!

They made an utter balls up of the guidelines and as a result told 200 odd capita bods that they must have a contract review by HMRC. One of the chaps in the office called HMRC and explained what was going on and the guy on the end of the phone said: "They did f!cking did what??? We never told them to do that!!!!"...

This is what I didn't get - they have a PDF attached to the email with more info and it says you have to do a Business Entity Test on the HMRC site and "If the business is medium or high risk according to HMRC’s
“business entity” tests but are outside the scope of IR35, then you will
need to provide assurance in a different way – for example, following a
contract review by HMRC’s independent IR35 helpline"....

If, unlike bobspud's client, they say "for example", presumably evidence of a 3rd party review will be sufficient.

Perhaps a daft question - but what happens if your contract fails the review?

[bobspud]

If, unlike bobspud's client, they say "for example", presumably evidence of a 3rd party review will be sufficient.

Perhaps a daft question - but what happens if your contract fails the review?

Then you need to pay the entire contract as inside IR35. Thats bad news if you happen to have been onsite for more than a few months...

That was the main issue that I had with the clowns in my ex-client. All they had to do was use cntrl-c cntrl-v to copy and paste what the treasury asked for into their policy document but they couldn't even manage that on their own...

One of my ex colleagues had been with Capita for 18 months he had just gone through either QDOS or Abbey IR35 review had the certificate to prove his practices were outside the remit of ir35 but the end client were saying nothing except the HMRC contract will do and it had to be in by the 20th of January

HMRC neither wanted this or are staffed to essentially to do what my lot wanted them to do, so it will take months to do the due diligence. In the meantime I know that all the guys that I worked with are flooding out the doors...

Omnishambles really suits my ex client well...

[centurian]

That was the main issue that I had with the clowns in my ex-client. All they had to do was use cntrl-c cntrl-v to copy and paste what the treasury asked for into their policy document but they couldn't even manage that on their own...

Which was always the danger as soon as this was announced - that some ClientCo's would take it further than the guidance mandated. Ironically the actual guidance from HMRC left a lot more wriggle room than I believed it would, but a few ClientCo's are still taking a much harder line.

I suspect the boards are mindful of the current tax avoidance backlash, so are taking a very strict approach to prevent them from being the next expose in the press.

[BolshieBastard]

Slightly off topic but, does anyone know or have an opinion on the rented premises test?

A fellow contractor colleague states he'd pass the rented premises element of these new tests as he rents an office from regus for an hour a week. I think Im correct in understanding the test doesnt state how long the office should be rented but wouldnt hmrc see straight through this hour a week renting and say it's artificial?

[bobspud]

Which was always the danger as soon as this was announced - that some ClientCo's would take it further than the guidance mandated. Ironically the actual guidance from HMRC left a lot more wriggle room than I believed it would, but a few ClientCo's are still taking a much harder line.

I suspect the boards are mindful of the current tax avoidance backlash, so are taking a very strict approach to prevent them from being the next expose in the press.

Actually I think there is a much more devious game afoot.
My lot have flooded the treasury with work and back lash and effectively are clearing all the contractors out. I expect a winge will go into ministers that they can't do their work anymore and thus need many more b grades and as aresult more c grades to manage them...

[bobspud]

Slightly off topic but, does anyone know or have an opinion on the rented premises test?

A fellow contractor colleague states he'd pass the rented premises element of these new tests as he rents an office from regus for an hour a week. I think Im correct in understanding the test doesnt state how long the office should be rented but wouldnt hmrc see straight through this hour a week renting and say it's artificial?

Don't think it will matter. HMRC will say silly ruse start an investigation and promptly loose because the contractor has no MOO and a substitution clause...

[centurian]

Slightly off topic but, does anyone know or have an opinion on the rented premises test?

A fellow contractor colleague states he'd pass the rented premises element of these new tests as he rents an office from regus for an hour a week. I think Im correct in understanding the test doesnt state how long the office should be rented but wouldnt hmrc see straight through this hour a week renting and say it's artificial?

Of course they would - the business entity tests have no actual bearing on your IR35 status - their intent was to provide LtdCo's with a means of assessing themselves for their own piece of mind. If he's spending money to change the answer to a question, he's spending money just to kid himself.

That said, whether anyone looking at it would notice that is another matter. So it might decrease the likelihood of an investigation being taken further. But if it's spotted, I think it's next to useless.