Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[northernladuk]

Oh Dear...

But to be expected.

[Andy Hallett]

There's a dispute resolution mechanism for a contractor to disagree with a decision made, and it would be determined, ultimately, against IR35 case law, which is obviously different from the PS client making a determination with the online tool or whatever procedure they use. So, theoretically, I assume it is possible, but it would be odd for a contractor to accept inside terms and then dispute them, and when an edge-payment is caught (i.e. contractor leaves in March and gets paid after April 6), it wouldn't be worth pursuing, given the amount involved.

I've yet to see evidence of any dispute mechanism. Could you point me in the direction of where you have seen this. Certainly couldn't find anything in here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...oyment-payment

As I understood the PSec body are the sole arbiters, if you don't like the decision then you have a commercial decision to take.

[5000]

So this thread has a lot of:
"leave before youre doomed!"
"If you don't leave before April 2017 youre doomed and certain to get an IR35 investigation"
"I left months ago only tulip contractors are still there"

But not enough of:
"If you are still in the PS this is what you should do..>"

Can we look to collate a straightforward, simple understanding of how a contractor can should look to operate if still in PS ?

Things like?

Get a new Contract.
Use a brolly.
issues with same role and new inside contract

would be good to see some positive steps a contractor can take instead of " I got out months ago and you are all doomed"

be nice to end up with some sort of steps to tackle the issue (apart from just leave)

As others have said, very hazy at the moment, doom etc. Also:

1. If your planning to get out - speak to the agency to make sure the last payment is made prior to the 6th April. I imagine some agencies would make early payments if it avoids the new rules.

2. If the contract goes out beyond April consider ensure that either the agency or yourco writes to the public sector client to determine if the new rules apply. If they don't respond within 31 days they become accountable for PAYE (but will probably terminate the contract instead). (I would not like to be a CL1 contractor with a contract going beyond April with no notice period/ability to terminate the contract. Offer a substitute to take over after April perhaps? ). You can ask them the reasons for the determination if you like

3. If the contract goes beyond April - continue invoicing as normal and when they payments come in light proceed to chase up outstanding amounts owed to the company. Late payments of commercial debts act, bring in the debt collectors when they don't cough up etc.

4. If you are staying beyond April ask they agency to outline the options going forward - e.g. limited/brolly/paye - pick what suits you best. Maybe one of the agencies that post on here can outline the likely pro's and con's of each

5. Worth discussing with the client - they may be able to package the requirement differently - if TFL see if you are one of the "exceptions". Proceed with caution so you do not get caught out.

6. If inside seek legal advice to determine whether you have a contract of employment. Immediately go off sick as soon as you qualify for sick pay

7. Ask you agency how this the new rules affect your assistant who the company pays to do your admin support under the contract and the Indian developers you subcontract to write code so that you can post to CUK.

[eek]

But to be expected.

Utterly expected and provides HMRC with both the excuse to extend it to the private sector (look it worked, the impact was minimal) and a nice large target to retrospectively start IR35 cases against..

[jamesbrown]

I've yet to see evidence of any dispute mechanism. Could you point me in the direction of where you have seen this. Certainly couldn't find anything in here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...oyment-payment

As I understood the PSec body are the sole arbiters, if you don't like the decision then you have a commercial decision to take.

To be clear, I'm not saying there is a bespoke mechanism for the new off-payroll rules, although there is some uncertainty about this, because the earlier guidance implied that the mechanism might be bespoke. Rather, there is an established mechanism to propagate a dispute. See here for some info from HMRC on this:

https://abbeytaxblog.co.uk/2016/12/1...public-sector/

[b r]

We don't know. The best I can say is that the money is withheld by the agency and they will pay it to HMRC. How you get it over payments back from HMRC no one knows yet...

Ok, that makes me feel better, at least it's not just my lack of understanding.

[Andy Hallett]

To be clear, I'm not saying there is a bespoke mechanism for the new off-payroll rules, although there is some uncertainty about this, because the earlier guidance implied that the mechanism might be bespoke. Rather, there is an established mechanism to propagate a dispute. See here for some info from HMRC on this:

https://abbeytaxblog.co.uk/2016/12/1...public-sector/

Thanks for that. Interesting read.

[DotasScandal]

Oh Dear...

The more things change...

[runandbecome]

The more things change...

So I'm gathering from April a contracting female will get maternity leave paid?
After all that's part of NI contributions.

[teapot418]

To be clear, I'm not saying there is a bespoke mechanism for the new off-payroll rules, although there is some uncertainty about this, because the earlier guidance implied that the mechanism might be bespoke. Rather, there is an established mechanism to propagate a dispute. See here for some info from HMRC on this:

https://abbeytaxblog.co.uk/2016/12/1...public-sector/

Interesting that Abbey Tax think retrospection is unlikely

"What if, as many are suggesting, the line of least resistance is taken and all engagements are deemed caught from the 6th April; will there be an attempt to look at the engagement retrospectively? One can see why there might be concern, but there appear to be some valid arguments against why that is unlikely.

Firstly, the tests were different: mutuality of obligations was still a status test (and as far as the courts are concerned it still is) and HMRC’s online status tool didn’t exist. So, unless fraudulent information was provided previously, it would seem unfair to judge the past on the basis of new rules.

Secondly, the public sector body would have to provide evidence to argue why it accepted the previous assurances.

Whilst we accept that there are no guarantees, it seems unlikely that HMRC would (have the resources to) undertake a retrospective exercise across the board."