Does control influence whether an engagement is one of for service or of service ?

[craig1]

I've never really understood why agencies get so stuck on IR35 if they plan to act ethically and morally towards the contractor in all circumstances. If a contractor gets caught out on a review by HMRC then that's the contractor's issue for the contractor to resolve. The only reason I can think any agency would want to fight and "test this point in a court of law" is if they want to do anything they can to deny contractors the protections within the Conduct Regs.

In this case, if the contractor had been able to invoke the Regulations successfully then he'd have been at least £15,000 better off, and maybe up to £54,000 better off depending on if it were the client or contractor who CNL wanted the £39,600 from.

As an aside, I wondered how that £39,600 figure could be so high and guessed that the agency cut must have been substantial to allow them to claim such a high "loss". A very quick Google search brought up this interesting snippet showing an example of CNL having a £200 per day cut from a contractor (contractor day rate £550) and using it to justify a high "buy out". It makes more sense now why the Conduct Regs would be such a nuisance.

[Ticktock]

What the level of control in the "Conduct Regs" if applicable will have on the position of IR35, if any.

Well that won't lead to confusion at all... If the answer is "Not opting out means you are IR35 caught" then there is still the question over whether the Conduct Regs should apply at all in a B2B relationship, or in the particular circumstances of each contract. Of course, these would be glossed over and instead the message would be "You must always Opt Out."

[Old Greg]

What the level of control in the "Conduct Regs" if applicable will have on the position of IR35, if any.

So is it currently settled or not?

[malvolio]

So is it currently settled or not?

No idea. But I've heard from BIS, three separate IR35 accountants, the PCG and REC that the Agency Regs have absolutely no bearing at all on any IR35 decisions. Clearly we're all missing something...

[Old Greg]

No idea. But I've heard from BIS, three separate IR35 accountants, the PCG and REC that the Agency Regs have absolutely no bearing at all on any IR35 decisions. Clearly we're all missing something...

I'm missing something and TBH there's far too much to bother reading.

But I'm not sure why you would need to test something in the courts which you appear to claim is 100% settled. Anyway, Rory Dwyer is a name on my 'not to do business with' list. Seems like too much hard work.

[bartman]

Anyone have any idea of an estimate/formula on how much money opting out actually saves an agency?

[malvolio]

Anyone have any idea of an estimate/formula on how much money opting out actually saves an agency?

Last time I asked (talking to an Ops Director with a major agency) about 4 man hours per contract in all the work required to check ID, references, right to work and related odds and sods. Not a lot in isolation, but it adds up.

[Old Greg]

Last time I asked (talking to an Ops Director with a major agency) about 4 man hours per contract in all the work required to check ID, references, right to work and related odds and sods. Not a lot in isolation, but it adds up.

But there must be a value in the transfer of risk of end client not paying agency from agency to contractor? Or am I muddling up opting in and out?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

What the level of control in the "Conduct Regs" if applicable will have on the position of IR35, if any.

It seems far more likely to me that the revised Agencies Legislation within section 44 ITEPA will have a far greater link to the Conduct Regs than IR35

[malvolio]

But there must be a value in the transfer of risk of end client not paying agency from agency to contractor? Or am I muddling up opting in and out?

You can't opt in...

No, you're right, there are the savings associated with the ability not to pay until you've been paid, and other invisible overheads such as longer handcuffs to protect your business. Make no mistake, the argument from the agency side is all about the money, nothing else. Why else did they hijack the Regs, which were meant to protect vulnerable workers, to create a whole different financial straitjacket for workers who aren't even meant to be in scope?