Agent asking for NI number before next payment

[Batcher]

Yes, I agree but the key word is "worker", inter-alia, to be a worker you need to be under the control of an employer. Many contractors are not, they set there own work pattern. I suggest that the rules have been erroneously drafted but it would be a costly exercise to test it as the matter would most likely to be taken as far as the Supreme Court.

UK legislation cannot override the definition of "worker"

I'm an employee / worker for a Ltd that I happen to be a shareholder of. My Ltd tends to win contracts via agencies (in the main) and then tells me where I need to go to work that day to earn my salary.

HMRC are tightening up to stop people cheating the system. If you operate correctly you have nothing to fear.

[Contreras]

If they are an employee, then yes.

If they are a substitute, then yes.

If they are a provider of services (eg. "to provide ten days consultancy") rather than a substitute, then no.

Hmm, shouldn't that be: No, Yes, Yes. ?

If the extra person supplied is on PAYE terms with your company and returned under RTI, then reporting is not required under the new regulations.

linky

[MicrosoftBob]

HMRC are tightening up to stop contractors claiming expenses. If you operate correctly you have everything to fear.

FTFY

[Paddy]

I'm an employee / worker for a Ltd that I happen to be a shareholder of. My Ltd tends to win contracts via agencies (in the main) and then tells me where I need to go to work that day to earn my salary.

HMRC are tightening up to stop people cheating the system. If you operate correctly you have nothing to fear.

But the implication is that you will automatically considered as a "worker" under the control of your "employer". IR35 will automatically apply.

If HMRC are tightening up to stop people cheating the system, then start with HSBC and not with tax paying contractors outside IR35.

[TheFaQQer]

Hmm, shouldn't that be: No, Yes, Yes. ?

linky

I'll take the correction for the first but not the last.

If I engage a supplier, then I won't provide the information - for example, if I engage Microsoft to provide services then I won't have all their details. So if I subcontract an individual, then I would provide the details; if I purchase services from a limited company then I wouldn't need to do it.

[northernladuk]

Rather than just posting stupid sentences explain how getting your contract reviewed and changed so you are less likely to be investigated/caught by the IR35 is not avoiding it?

Did you opt out of the 2 year rule as well?

[MicrosoftBob]

But the implication is that you will automatically considered as a "worker" under the control of your "employer". IR35 will automatically apply.

If HMRC are tightening up to stop people cheating the system, then start with HSBC and not with tax paying contractors outside IR35.

HSBC can afford to take HMRC on, individual contractors often can't, HMRC go for the low hanging fruit everytime

[Unix]

Did you opt out of the 2 year rule as well?

You tell me

[SueEllen]

HSBC can afford to take HMRC on, individual contractors often can't, HMRC go for the low hanging fruit everytime

HMRC can't afford to take contractors on who have tax insurance.

[MicrosoftBob]

HMRC can't afford to take contractors on who have tax insurance.

Which is a small minority, and they can afford to take them on even though they usually lose, it's their lack of accountability that makes them carry on

And partly because IR35 was introduced out of spite, rather than for any economical reasons