Word matching agency methods. . .are they letting the industry down?

[Project Monkey]

Spot on NLUK. (Man, I hate agreeing with you!)

[northernladuk]

I think we live in parallel universes. I would say that a jack of all trades is a master of none but at the same time I also don't always see enormous productivity, efficiency and/or expertise from those dedicated to a single function.

OMG you just can't make this up? You can't see enormous productivity, efficiency and/or expertise delivered by a specialist in a field to the task in hand that requires his skills

You ever seen a builder build a wall compared to a general DIY handman? I know who I would be employing if I needed a wall building quickly and efficiently.

[TransitTrucker]

OMG you just can't make this up? You can't see enormous productivity, efficiency and/or expertise delivered by a specialist in a field to the task in hand that requires his skills

You ever seen a builder build a wall compared to a general DIY handman? I know who I would be employing if I needed a wall building quickly and efficiently.

I qualified as a CMM auditor and worked on developer efficiency for a car manufacturer and a well known Gas supplier so I know about measurement, quality of outcome and productivity. Where are you coming from saying "You couldn't make this up?" please?

[northernladuk]

Mehhhh lol.. Am out of this one. Had my fun so will let someone else take over the reins.

[malvolio]

Late to the thread but a couple of apparently relevant points:

(a) I'm a generalist. Since I design and/or deliver complete business solutions I have to be able to talk to users, techies, coders, PMs, management and people who actually know what they're doing. However...

(b) I'm there to do one job, in the current case to be a Service Architect. I'm more than capable of running their whole IT team, delivering their ISO2000-1 accreditation, doing bid management and a host of high level technical jobs, but I don't since that's not what I'm contracted to do. More than happy to do those things, but I want another schedule and maybe a talk about rates first.

If you haven't learned that yet, it's damned well time you did.

[TransitTrucker]

Late to the thread but a couple of apparently relevant points:

(a) I'm a generalist. Since I design and/or deliver complete business solutions I have to be able to talk to users, techies, coders, PMs, management and people who actually know what they're doing. However...

(b) I'm there to do one job, in the current case to be a Service Architect. I'm more than capable of running their whole IT team, delivering their ISO2000-1 accreditation, doing bid management and a host of high level technical jobs, but I don't since that's not what I'm contracted to do. More than happy to do those things, but I want another schedule and maybe a talk about rates first.

If you haven't learned that yet, it's damned well time you did.

Who was that directed at?

In my last contract the role was called "IT Consultant". One job - do everything in my power to deliver the business benefits agreed in the boss's Business Case. To that end I fulfilled a number of managerial and supervisory roles as mentioned above. As I said, I have also been employed for one role and been "redirected" to other roles during the course of the project. Maybe I should have mentioned the rate. However, the client was already paying over book price so it wasn't a problem for me. Plus, I actually enjoy the work better when there is some variety. Maybe, I don't perform like a true specialist but I have never had a single complaint.

[SussexSeagull]

Who was that directed at?

In my last contract the role was called "IT Consultant". One job - do everything in my power to deliver the business benefits agreed in the boss's Business Case. To that end I fulfilled a number of managerial and supervisory roles as mentioned above. As I said, I have also been employed for one role and been "redirected" to other roles during the course of the project. Maybe I should have mentioned the rate. However, the client was already paying over book price so it wasn't a problem for me. Plus, I actually enjoy the work better when there is some variety. Maybe, I don't perform like a true specialist but I have never had a single complaint.

I think the point people are making is that you are very vulnerable to IR35 if the tax man comes knocking.

Not a problem if you are under an Umbrella, obviously.

[Antman]

Playing devil's advocate here, but how exactly is having IT consultant on your contract and on your schedule "Responsible for delivery of X, Y Z" going to put you inside of IR35?

Because a schedule is general and not specific you could infer that the supplier will have their working practices controlled by the client but that is a subjective opinion IMO. Is there a business test for a schedule or somewhere where a schedule has been tested in law and found wanting because it was general?

Re-reading OP comments about re-directed to other projects, break out the temazepan dude!

[northernladuk]

Playing devil's advocate here, but how exactly is having IT consultant on your contract and on your schedule "Responsible for delivery of X, Y Z" going to put you inside of IR35?

Because a schedule is general and not specific you could infer that the supplier will have their working practices controlled by the client but that is a subjective opinion IMO. Is there a business test for a schedule or somewhere where a schedule has been tested in law and found wanting because it was general?

Re-reading OP comments about re-directed to other projects, break out the temazepan dude!

A good point. I would say putting IT consultant down is going to be a bit of a red rag to a bull and tied together with a very generic X, Y and Z doesn't exactly make for a great defence when HMRC turn up. If X, Y and Z are defined in enough detail to differentiate you from a permie maybe but step out of that and you are screwed. An arrangement like this would just look like, and probably is, just a very loose way of getting a guy in to do what you want with very basic paperwork in an attempt to tick the boxes. If this is the only way to document the gig and the client is happy with it then you would start to guess the client just wants a run about as well.

All comes down the realities of the work. From what the OP says he is just flitting from one bit of work to another as the client wants so in this context the reality and the contract as stated above look very very poor. Not saying it isn't impossible but it is far from a satisfactory situation.

If the contract is as woolly as this, the clients expectation of the contractor is a dogsbody and the contractor being willing to do what they want then you are truly stuffed. HMRC will rip this one apart.

You mention infer and subjective. I would say that is an unacceptable position for a contractor to be in. If you are willing to go in to contracts with that you might as well not bother with IR35 at all. Avoiding an investigation is the key, getting caught and having inference and subjectivity in your defense is going to make for a pretty uncomfortable investigation even though you could win.

[northernladuk]

Is there a business test for a schedule or somewhere where a schedule has been tested in law and found wanting because it was general?

Have a read of the JLJ split case here. It talks a lot about the fact he was a contractor taken on to deliver specific pieces of work within his area of expertise but later in the contract he was used as the client needed and his employment situation became a grey area.

IT contractor JLJ in first ever 'split IR35 case' :: Contractor UK

and in particular comments such as...

"Furthermore, Allianz also said that it had the right, if some emergency arose, to require Mr Spencer to pause in work on a particular project if some other matter needed to be attended to first."

Such a lack of control is "fine" when the worker is providing expert services (judgement point 23) - on a unique project (point 42), but not, explains Ms Cottrell, when "the engager needs work undertaken repeatedly, and when you are working generally within the organisation."

Given that the classic tests of employment status have not changed, and therefore remain as significantly determining as they were before the case, the advisor believes such a work pattern is the "main" warning contractors should heed.

Mr Mason agreed: "For a contractor, the central message being sent by the courts is that if you're going to engage over a long period, then you really need to be able to show that you're engaged on specific projects.

"[To be outside IR35 you can't] just basically get on with whatever work crops up [from the end-user]. Do that and you risk ending up becoming very much part and parcel of their organisation.

"In other words he became one of Allianz's key computer experts, available for work that was likely to be available indefinitely. He certainly ceased to be engaged just for identified projects.

"By breaking the link with projects, and indicating that Mr Spencer would work generally within the organisation, we consider that from 2004 onwards, there was more reality to Control."

Abbey Tax reflected: "From that moment onwards - the inside-IR35 period, to us the judge is effectively saying there was mutuality."

And so on...

All of these could have been avoided if he had continued to get his work agreed and engaged each with a contract which wouldn't have been a problem but it highlights a number of areas that I see the OP falling over from what he has said so far.