Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[SueEllen]

If there's an online tool available it will be used in both sectors. What the hell's the point of it otherwise?

For private sector it isn't compulsory but it is there for a reason.

I'm not sure what you are finding hard to understand - the private sector is not governed and scrutinised in the same way as the public sector.

In other words different rules apply.

Yes there are minimum standards but these are harder to enforce in the private sector than the public sector. Hence the Uber case.

[MrMarkyMark]

It's important to remember that this tool is for the public sector because HMG can force it to ignore employment law and use whatever criteria it deems fit to use to determine IR35 status...

Getting the private sector to use the tool as its probably going to be designed isn't likely to work because a manager in the private sector can't be fired by a senior civil servant....

True and I suspect there will be huge private sector push back, in any case.
My MD is very clues up, in the ins and outs of IR35.

A lot of the work in IB, currently, is either, specialist skills, regulatory, or setting up stuff so it can be, poorly, run offshore.

Hardly what you would term work with any permanence attached.

[LondonManc]

Autumn Statement 2016 says: "This reform will help to tackle the high levels of non-compliance with the current rules and means that those working in a similar way to employees in the public sector will pay the same taxes as employees."

Working in a similar way seems key. Specialists will be exempt because if there aren't any in there, there's nobody to work in a similar way to. Ditto SMEs by definition if there's only one. You could broaden the "similar way" to mean incompetent, incapable and generally disinterested. But perfectly happy to take sick days, get paid for time off, finish early for appointments, funerals, school run, etc. and still get a full day's credit for it and so on.

Fundamentally, and all mocking aside, the crux of taking a contract in PS and being outside IR35 could boil down to one question: am I in a unique role?

[eek]

Fundamentally, and all mocking aside, the crux of taking a contract in PS and being outside IR35 could boil down to one question: am I in a unique role?

And have I been brought in via CL1 or not? The former is I think a dead cert for inside based on the guidance....

[jamesbrown]

The online tool is not compulsory, even in the public sector, and it's simply provided as an FYI for the private sector. For now.

I'm pretty sure I read it WAS compulsory, plus no way will a PS Manager risk operating outside it.

Nope. A determination is compulsory (by the PS client), according to the draft revised ITEPA. The tool is there to assist in the client making a determination. A client could make an inside determination without using the tool (the reverse is less likely, of course). Obviously, in the public sector, HMG controls the contract chain, so they can mandate things via procurement frameworks and contracts. However, the ITEPA has never gone into details about how status should be determined, it never will (when this is rolled out to the private sector), and it certainly doesn't say anything about an "online tool"

[youngguy]

Nope. A determination is compulsory (by the PS client), according to the draft revised ITEPA. The tool is there to assist in the client making a determination. A client could make an inside determination without using the tool (the reverse is less likely, of course). Obviously, in the public sector, HMG controls the contract chain, so they can mandate things via procurement frameworks and contracts. However, the ITEPA has never gone into details about how status should be determined, it never will (when this is rolled out to the private sector), and it certainly doesn't say anything about an "online tool"

And whilst the note says it is not compulsory, ps procurement depts COULD make it part of their internal process and mandate it that way. And why wouldn't they...if they can answer 10 y/n Qs and get an instant answer then that is part of their job done. No civil servant is going to care what that means for Gov or us in terms of ni NICs etc

[jamesbrown]

And whilst the note says it is not compulsory, ps procurement depts COULD make it part of their internal process and mandate it that way. And why wouldn't they...if they can answer 10 y/n Qs and get an instant answer then that is part of their job done. No civil servant is going to care what that means for Gov or us in terms of ni NICs etc

I'm talking about the legislation, but I think that's what I said Unlike the private sector, HMG controls the procurement frameworks and contracts in the PS.

[youngguy]

I'm talking about the legislation, but I think that's what I said Unlike the private sector, HMG controls the procurement frameworks and contracts in the PS.

Yes, I was attempting to add weight to your point (and clearly failed !)

😀

[LondonManc]

It's dead in the water for private sector. If HMRC/HMG cannot control how procurement is done, procurement models will change once someone has seen the questions and figured out how to negate/favourably answer them.

[mudskipper]

Nope. A determination is compulsory (by the PS client), according to the draft revised ITEPA. The tool is there to assist in the client making a determination. A client could make an inside determination without using the tool (the reverse is less likely, of course). Obviously, in the public sector, HMG controls the contract chain, so they can mandate things via procurement frameworks and contracts. However, the ITEPA has never gone into details about how status should be determined, it never will (when this is rolled out to the private sector), and it certainly doesn't say anything about an "online tool"

However, the PS will need to be able to justify why they've reached the determination that they have, much easier if you go with the tool.


(3) If the information which subsection (1) requires the client to give to
a person has been given (whether in the contract, as required by
subsection (2) or otherwise), the client must, on a written request by
the person, provide the person with a written response to any
questions raised by the person about the client’s reasons for reaching
the conclusion identified in the information.

(4) A response required by subsection (2) or (3) must be provided before
the end of 31 days beg