Brummie calls out NLUK on IR35

[Brummie]

WTF are you on about?

Your post doesn't make sense.

You could try dictionary.cambridge.org. Just a suggestion

[SueEllen]

You could try dictionary.cambridge.org. Just a suggestion

No you need to stop posting irrelevant crap on someone else's thread.

[MrMarkyMark]

You could try dictionary.cambridge.org. Just a suggestion

Conversely, I would suggest you spend a little more time there yourself.

Your written English is beyond dreadful and that's before we even get to the dubious content.

[northernladyuk]

You could try dictionary.cambridge.org. Just a suggestion

Thanks - useful context for your post.

cretin
noun [ C ] UK /ˈkret.ɪn/ US /ˈkriː.t̬ən/ offensive

a very stupid person

[perplexed]

Most of the contractors come and ask the question know what the law states. They are here for the practical point of view. Its the difference between avoidance and evasion.

I'd suggest most of those posting *think* they know what the law states.

I'll leave others to judge if you fit into that category.

[NotAllThere]

Original thread derailed, so all off topic moved to here.

[BrilloPad]

If anyone does not like NLUK's advice, they are free to ask for their money back.

NLUK - it serves you right. No good deed goes unpunished. You should tell these people with IR35 questions to ask their accountant.....

[Cirrus]

Most of the contractors come and ask the question know what the law states. They are here for the practical point of view. Its the difference between avoidance and evasion.

Totally agree with you, Brummie.

99% of all contractors are de facto IR35.

The game you play is judging whether you will be extremely unlucky and get investigated. And then be extremely, extremely unlucky for QDOS not to get you off.

To me it's entirely a question of risk appetite.

A typical dialogue is

OP " If I take a contract where <such-and-such>, what should I do?"

NLUK " You will be deemed to be <whatever>"

Of course the truth is you can do what you like. Nothing happens until your return goes in. Then some process (nobody knows the details) picks out a tiny amount of cases to probe. I worked at HMRC for a while and my sense was they have extremely limited capabilities and freedom to search data to identify suspicious behaviours.

We do know people do get picked upon although I've never met anybody who has or who knows anyone who has. And we know some of them get done although the figures IPSE last produced showed the chances of getting off are almost 100% as long as you go into battle fully tooled up.

However I've said this a number of times on here (ie 'what proof have you got for your barrack room prognostications?') and nobody wants to know.

You might as well give up now.

[northernladyuk]

Totally agree with you, Brummie.

99% of all contractors are de facto IR35.

The game you play is judging whether you will be extremely unlucky and get investigated. And then be extremely, extremely unlucky for QDOS not to get you off.

To me it's entirely a question of risk appetite.

A typical dialogue is

OP " If I take a contract where <such-and-such>, what should I do?"

NLUK " You will be deemed to be <whatever>"

Of course the truth is you can do what you like. Nothing happens until your return goes in. Then some process (nobody knows the details) picks out a tiny amount of cases to probe. I worked at HMRC for a while and my sense was they have extremely limited capabilities and freedom to search data to identify suspicious behaviours.

We do know people do get picked upon although I've never met anybody who has or who knows anyone who has. And we know some of them get done although the figures IPSE last produced showed the chances of getting off are almost 100% as long as you go into battle fully tooled up.

However I've said this a number of times on here (ie 'what proof have you got for your barrack room prognostications?') and nobody wants to know.

You might as well give up now.

This is broadly correct. However, listening to the deranged musings of my old man is not all bad (don't tell him), as long as you only pick out the useful nuggets and ignore his conclusions. You need to make yourself as defensible as possible so take the pointers and see what you can do. Then if you're working in a project on deliverables, in the very unlikely event you are investigated it is very unlikely that you will lose.

If you're a squarely inside IR35 (it is what it is; borderline at best) BAU monkey like PC, then you need to work out whether it is worth the risk that in the very unlikely event that you are investigated, you are significantly more likely to lose.

[northernladuk]

Totally agree with you, Brummie.

99% of all contractors are de facto IR35.

The game you play is judging whether you will be extremely unlucky and get investigated. And then be extremely, extremely unlucky for QDOS not to get you off.

To me it's entirely a question of risk appetite.

A typical dialogue is

OP " If I take a contract where , what should I do?"

NLUK " You will be deemed to be "

Of course the truth is you can do what you like. Nothing happens until your return goes in. Then some process (nobody knows the details) picks out a tiny amount of cases to probe. I worked at HMRC for a while and my sense was they have extremely limited capabilities and freedom to search data to identify suspicious behaviours.

We do know people do get picked upon although I've never met anybody who has or who knows anyone who has. And we know some of them get done although the figures IPSE last produced showed the chances of getting off are almost 100% as long as you go into battle fully tooled up.

However I've said this a number of times on here (ie 'what proof have you got for your barrack room prognostications?') and nobody wants to know.

You might as well give up now.

A couple of points here are not correct and there are a couple of reasons why.

Hang around professional long enough and you'll see a vast majority of threads are about the OP not knowing enough about IR35 so totally disagree about people knowing about IR35 and coming on for an opinion. Secondly NATs selective tulip modding failed to being the context over where blossom got a number of factors about IR35 wrong which is why we got in to it in the first place so the evidence is right there in that very thread.

You are right, we don't know so all the more reason to know the finer points to help make your decision about amount of risk hence the discussion.