IR35 poser

[eek]

Suppose you have the choice of the following:-

Move to a different project in clientco
Stay in the same project but perform a different task (within your skill set but not included with the description of the work schedule of being pedantic.)

Which one is more IR35 unfriendly. Its a theoretical question more than a real one so no insults required....

[cojak]

Suppose you have the choice of the following:-

Move to a different project in clientco
Stay in the same project but perform a different task (within your skill set but not included with the description of the work schedule of being pedantic.)

Which one is more IR35 unfriendly. Its a theoretical question more than a real one so no insults required....

Both are equally unfriendly. Both would require a new contract agreed and signed (although this is easier to do during contract extension).

I walked from a contract that canned the project I was on and expected me to do something else.

[jamesbrown]

The first one has no bearing on status - you will be a supplier on a new project, with a new scope of work defined accordingly. Doing work on demand is what an employee does, so the latter is problematic (working outside of the scope of supply - skillset is irrelevant).

[northernladuk]

As long as a new contract is raised with a detailed description of the work I don't think either are a problem.

If you slide from one skill to another it can look very permiesque but if it is a new piece of contracted work then you can easily argue it is a new opportunity. That is how Cognizant, Wipro etc make their money.

[cojak]

(or at least the Work Schedule amended, agreed and signed.)

[northernladuk]

(or at least the Work Schedule amended, agreed and signed.)

I did this after asking the boards opinion awhile ago and although I do think it is enough for minor moves within a project I just felt it wasn't enough. I know it is ok and easily defendable I just wanted it to be a bit more... meaty. I had a good relationship with the client so they were happy to terminate the contract for the first piece of work and start a whole new one for the next piece. I felt a lot more comfortable with this as well as a binned notice to boot.

Over the top for what is necessary I know, just wanted it belt and braces for my own peace of mind.

[GazCol]

Both a bad, but if scaled, I would say issue 1 is a higher risk, dependent on how the contract is worded, of course.

[jamesbrown]

Really, the OP needs to clarify the scenarios in terms of whether new contracts are being drawn-up, because they are both bad in the absence of new contracts/schedules of work. But, from the info. that the OP does provide, this is a red flag: "but not included with the description of the work schedule of being pedantic." Or it would've been a red flag, had it been written in English

[Craig at Nixon Williams]

The first one has no bearing on status - you will be a supplier on a new project, with a new scope of work defined accordingly. Doing work on demand is what an employee does, so the latter is problematic (working outside of the scope of supply - skillset is irrelevant).

I'd assume that the first option would be a new project with a new contract whereas the second one would be the same project with the same contract but a deviation from the contracted work. I therefore agree with jamesbrown - working on demand on whatever you are told to is the sort of control that exists in an employment relationship, I think option 2 is more problematic from an IR35 perspective!

Hope this helps!
Craig

[Old Greg]

Negotiate an extra £10 per day. New project. New quote.