IR35 PS - So anyone had the discussion yet?

[difficulttimes]

See in City AM this morning TFL case was mentioned in an article.

Saw that.. for such a large public sector body with over 30K employees they are incredibly clueless. I bet they never sought any IR35 advise before making this decision and some chump in HR made this decision without understanding anything about the legislation. Now they are paying for it - I hope the majority of them leave.

[eek]

Saw that.. for such a large public sector body with over 30K employees they are incredibly clueless. I bet they never sought any IR35 advise before making this decision and some chump in HR made this decision without understanding anything about the legislation. Now they are paying for it - I hope the majority of them leave.

I suspect given the skill set of most of the contractors that the majority will just suffer in silence due to having no other place to go....

If as appears to be the case, a lot of the people using limited companies as personal service companies are not in the IT industry, I suspect there may be very few people demanding their services.

We look at using a limited company to go contracting across a number of different companies / industries. Many others use limited companies simply as a means to maximise the amount of money they receive from their current temporary contract - and it is at them this change is aimed at - we as I've continually stated for years when it comes to these changes are just collateral damage.

[BoredBloke]

I suspect given the skill set of most of the contractors that the majority will just suffer in silence due to having no other place to go....

If as appears to be the case, a lot of the people using limited companies as personal service companies are not in the IT industry, I suspect there may be very few people demanding their services.

We look at using a limited company to go contracting across a number of different companies / industries. Many others use limited companies simply as a means to maximise the amount of money they receive from their current temporary contract - and it is at them this change is aimed at - we as I've continually stated for years when it comes to these changes are just collateral damage.

But surely they should be looking into the policies in place for hiring people who should be employees and not simply deciding that everybody should be an employee. I'd imagine, given the sums involved in a 20%+ tax hike, this could leave the public sector open to plenty of court cases where contractors challenge the decision. Especially if they were seen as being outside IR35 prior to April.

[sal]

Contract runs until mid Feb. Extension highly likely as the project is still ramping up and there are unavoidable hard deadlines, so the work needs to be done.

I had an early talk about this with the person signing my timesheets back in beginning of December. He told me that the organization is aware of the coming changes and assured me and the rest of the contractors working on the project that regardless of the final decision whether we are inside or outside, they are prepared to absorb the additional cost so we are not left out of pocket.

Last week we got an official communication from the IT Director stating that they are discussing the matter and reviewing individual contracts and working practices with their Legal department and the agencies and will have a verdict for each of us by the end of January.

All in all happy with the way the Client is handling it, same can't be said for the agency tho. My concern is that it's Hays - the same one that is the exclusive supplier to TfL

[eek]

But surely they should be looking into the policies in place for hiring people who should be employees and not simply deciding that everybody should be an employee. I'd imagine, given the sums involved in a 20%+ tax hike, this could leave the public sector open to plenty of court cases where contractors challenge the decision. Especially if they were seen as being outside IR35 prior to April.

Um how do you challenge the decision and given that both IPSE or QDOS's policies are based on tax investigations beginning (which is not the case here) how do you get financial support for such a case.

[northernladuk]

Um how do you challenge the decision and given that both IPSE or QDOS's policies are based on tax investigations beginning (which is not the case here) how do you get financial support for such a case.

Indeed. Must admit I've not been following this as closely as before but this idea that contractors can challenge the decision.. .So the client gives them a contract which has no RoS and something about SD&C... How on earth can the contractor challenge it? It's failed the two main pillars which have had to be there in previous cases? QDOS/IPSE/Anyone can or will defend that. A contractor trying to argue they are not inside when both the client and HMRC want them inside isn't going to work.

[sal]

Saw that.. for such a large public sector body with over 30K employees they are incredibly clueless. I bet they never sought any IR35 advise before making this decision and some chump in HR made this decision without understanding anything about the legislation. Now they are paying for it - I hope the majority of them leave.

Nah they are "very" IR35 averse - they have a rule where you can't contract for them for longer than 24m at a time, they might still need you but you have to take contract elsewhere or take a hiatus for couple of months before they take you back.

[BoredBloke]

Um how do you challenge the decision and given that both IPSE or QDOS's policies are based on tax investigations beginning (which is not the case here) how do you get financial support for such a case.

That's a good point, but with the sums of money involved and number of people involved here and the lack of wins that HMRC has had, I can't help but think that they are setting themselves up for some kind of fall in the future. Up to now HMRC will have thought they had a good chance of winning the IR35 cases it has fought and largely lost. While the client may be getting advise from HMRC to show that the role is now inside IR35, we all know that this tool is going to be biased. It's going to be a nice little earner for some employment lawyer to take these cases on, especially if the contract was seen to be outside IR35 prior to April and the contract/working practices have not changed.

[eek]

That's a good point, but with the sums of money involved and number of people involved here and the lack of wins that HMRC has had, I can't help but think that they are setting themselves up for some kind of fall in the future. Up to now HMRC will have thought they had a good chance of winning the IR35 cases it has fought and largely lost. While the client may be getting advise from HMRC to show that the role is now inside IR35, we all know that this tool is going to be biased. It's going to be a nice little earner for some employment lawyer to take these cases on, especially if the contract was seen to be outside IR35 prior to April and the contract/working practices have not changed.

Who is paying that employment lawyer? That is the problem with your argument....

[northernladuk]

Nah they are "very" IR35 averse - they have a rule where you can't contract for them for longer than 24m at a time, they might still need you but you have to take contract elsewhere or take a hiatus for couple of months before they take you back.

Interesting one. I wonder if they'll drop the ridiculous 24 month rule once all this kicks in.