IR35 answers from HMRC

[GhostofTarbera]

Very interesting

What HMRC told us about the changes to IR35 | IPSE


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[jamesbrown]

Yeah, I think you can safely ignore pretty much all of that.

[GhostofTarbera]

Yeah, I think you can safely ignore pretty much all of that.

A tad wishy washy


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[SimonMac]

Very interesting

What HMRC told us about the changes to IR35 | IPSE


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

I didn't realise IPSE was still a thing

[courtg9000]

I didn't realise IPSE was still a thing

its not

[NowPermOutsideUK]

Actually it reasserted that hmrc can only look back six years for ir35 which is very handy. For some reason I thought they could go back 20 years which would have been a worry

[malvolio]

Actually it reasserted that hmrc can only look back six years for ir35 which is very handy. For some reason I thought they could go back 20 years which would have been a worry

It's a convention. They normally stop at 6 years for convenience as much as anything. They can go back as far as they like, but normally up to 20 years is all that's necessary, if they have a good reason to do so. In the case of IR35 that would be along the lines of ignoring the legislation completely, as opposed to making an incorrect assessment of it.

That whole article actually says nothing of interest or relevance, sadly. It's tone is very much that HMRC will ignore any sensible representations about faults in the process.

And IPSE are still out there - its just they are attacking the wrong targets these days.

[jamesbrown]

Actually it reasserted that hmrc can only look back six years for ir35 which is very handy. For some reason I thought they could go back 20 years which would have been a worry

The timelines are 4, 6 and 20 years for nominal, careless and fraudulent behaviour, respectively.

[TwoWolves]

While we are talking about Employers’ NI, there was a suggestion by HMRC that an ‘inside’ determination creates automatic costs for the client in the form of Employers’ NI. This might be true where there is a direct engagement, but that is the exception rather than the rule. In most cases there is a complex supply chain, which means the employers’ NI burden falls nowhere near the end-client. In many cases, an inside determination will result in the insertion of an umbrella company that will reduce the payment to the contractor so that it can pay the NI: in other words, it’s the contractor who gets landed with the bill.

This was quickly pointed out to HMRC, but it made us realise we need to make sure everyone is clear on this. If the government’s intention was for clients to pay additional NI for people they should really be employing, then this legislation is failing. In most cases clients are not paying it – individuals are.

This bit makes me laugh. HMRC actually imagine the client will volunteer to pay Employer's NI, these people are muppets (or liars).