IR35 win for HMRC

[SallyAnne]

The guy representing HMRC was called Peter Death....how appropriate...

Ah I so wish he'd been a doctor of something

"And HMRC represented by Dr Death..."

How appropriate

[Epiphone]

Worth noting here that Spring are PCG affiliates...

I don't think they have been for some time now.

[Cowboy Bob]

I don't think they have been for some time now.

I see that they're not now, that's true. However, the fact that they ever were is still worth noting given their reputation. It's almost as bad as allowing CP to become affiliates...

[tay]

ok dumb question time

But does the tax dept investigate per contract or per company? Say if I have done 8 different contracts 7 are outside IR35, they think 1 is inside, do they tax me on all earnings from the company since it existed or just the contentious one?

Cant tell from the case in article as it was 5 years all one contract.

[Paddy]

ok dumb question time

But does the tax dept investigate per contract or per company? Say if I have done 8 different contracts 7 are outside IR35, they think 1 is inside, do they tax me on all earnings from the company since it existed or just the contentious one?

Cant tell from the case in article as it was 5 years all one contract.

"Ian Hough, a freelance business/data analyst, supplied his services through ICL, his own company, to Severn Trent Water through a series of three-month contracts over five years."

I think he was pushing his luck for five years. On the other hand hospital consultants are contracting for much more than five years

[Old Greg]

"Ian Hough, a freelance business/data analyst, supplied his services through ICL, his own company, to Severn Trent Water through a series of three-month contracts over five years."

I think he was pushing his luck for five years. On the other hand hospital consultants are contracting for much more than five years

If by consultant, you mean senior doctor, they are only consultants in that patients consult them. They are employed staff (except for the odd locum).

[Euro-commuter]

Quite why the commercial relationship between agency and client is relevant still escapes me. I know why HMRC go down that route but it wouldn't happen in another commercial field.

Because IR35 is about the contractor's relationship with the end client. In the absence of a direct contract between them, the 3 links in the chain provide the evidence about what this relationship is (contractor's relationship with Ltd Co, Ltd Co's relationship with agency, agency's relationship with client).

[Jog On]

Meanwhile, John Kell, policy officer for the Professional Contractors Group, reflected on the first IR35 defeat for Accountax, a PCG approved supplier, which represented Hough.

He told CUK: "Our understanding is that this was a very long-running IR35 case that was lost due to the client presenting evidence at the hearing that did not tally with their previous written account of events.

"In other words, it went wrong unexpectedly on the day. It has no broader implications and PCG's record in fighting IR35 remains peerless."

Does this mean that Accountax were provided by the PCG or they are just 'PCG approved'?

I'm unsure whether this is the PCG losing a case or not? Quite worrying if it is.

How many fecking hoops do we have to jump through just to make a living

[Not So Wise]

Way a read it is that, though there were a few minor employment indicating things against the contractor main thing that burned him was the agency/client contract.

Which makes me wonder, because most agencies do not allow the contractor to see this contract would it be possible to put a clause in the contractor/agency contract that if the agency enter into/sign any related contracts (aka agency/client) that contradict clauses in the contractor/agency contract that the agency would be liable for any costs that this might impose on the contractor (aka getting IR35 caught)?

[Jog On]

Way a read it is that, though there were a few minor employment indicating things against the contractor main thing that burned him was the agency/client contract.

Which makes me wonder, because most agencies do not allow the contractor to see this contract would it be possible to put a clause in the contractor/agency contract that if the agency enter into/sign any related contracts (aka agency/client) that contradict clauses in the contractor/agency contract that the agency would be liable for any costs that this might impose on the contractor (aka getting IR35 caught)?

I like that