Working practices inside IR35 on old contract.

[JRCT]

Sheesh, this is totally the attitude of a disguised employee IMHO.

Sure, the scope of a project can change and that may require a change in deliverables. At that point, you have (or should have) a choice to either terminate the contract because the situation has materially changed (i.e. lack of MoO) or you write a new contract or a contract amendment. As long as the deliverables are agreed upfront, that's fine. What isn't fine - and not only from an IR35 perspective(!) - is a scenario where the client shifts you around at their will without a negotiation or change to the contract wording. If you're not delivering on the contract wording, that leaves you in a potentially precarious position, not just from an IR35 perspective.

I'm not sure that's true. Whenever an "IR35 friendly" contract is mentioned on here, everyone rightly points out that it's working practices that count. No one points out that the working practices have to match exactly what the contract says. Just that they are also IR35 friendly.

I'm sure HMRC have no interest in whether you're particularly effective in delivering what you said you would, they're interested in how you do whatever you end up doing.

[jamesbrown]

I'm not sure that's true. Whenever an "IR35 friendly" contract is mentioned on here, everyone rightly points out that it's working practices that count. No one points out that the working practices have to match exactly what the contract says. Just that they are also IR35 friendly.

I'm sure HMRC have no interest in whether you're particularly effective in delivering what you said you would, they're interested in how you do whatever you end up doing.

No, your contract needs to be consistent with your working practices. Granted, if they differ, it's your working practices that will be decisive in an IR35 investigation, but this will only come to light following a complete investigation, creating plenty of headaches for yourself along the way. You need to have a contract that is backed-up by working practices. And this isn't just about IR35 - I'm astonished by the number of people on here that frame everything in terms of IR35 - it's bad practice all around to be working different terms than those in your contract; where do you think that leaves you in the event that you fail to deliver on the written contract? What if the client argues that the person who agreed the changes was in no such position to do so? Of course, you need to be sensible about this if the changes could reasonably be interpreted as a variation on the original contractual terms (i.e. not a substantial change).

[TheFaQQer]

It sounds somewhat like disguised employment.

A badly spelled and punctuated one at that.

[speling bee]

A badly spelled and punctuated one at that.

It is a worrying new trend.