IR35 PS - So anyone had the discussion yet?

[cojak]

Well my client seems to be taking the head in the sand view.

I've told them, I would like to renew but I cant do so unless something is sorted by end of Feb. Nothing has been done. So they've asked me to start handing over stuff and I've heard that the manager has been telling people I've decided to leave.

Problems is most of the other contractors here have the attitude, "don't know much about it", and "it'll be ok Im sure" so I look like the only one kicking up a fuss.

They'll find out soon enough in their bank accounts in May, and then brown letter envelopes thereafter PC.

You're doing the right thing...

[psychocandy]

They'll find out soon enough in their bank accounts in May, and then brown letter envelopes thereafter PC.

You're doing the right thing...

Some of my fellow contractors here amaze me. Most are not even members of IPSE. "Not wasting money on that". One guys been here 4 years.

Their attitude seems to be "ok Im a bit worried but it'll get sorted". They seem to be saying well I'm not leaving because I wont have a contract then. (although most have no notice contracts spanning over into April anyway!).

They dont seem to get it that it cost them a LOT of money if HMRC chase them for previous years.

Of course, at the moment, I'm just looking like the awkward d*ck in the clients eyes....

[northernladuk]

Of course, at the moment, I'm just looking like the awkward d*ck in the clients eyes....

Funnily enough you often look something similar to that to me as well... Just joking.

This isn't about being awkward though you are doing was has to be done to protect yourself. Screw them.

[SussexSeagull]

Some of my fellow contractors here amaze me. Most are not even members of IPSE. "Not wasting money on that". One guys been here 4 years.

Their attitude seems to be "ok Im a bit worried but it'll get sorted". They seem to be saying well I'm not leaving because I wont have a contract then. (although most have no notice contracts spanning over into April anyway!).

They dont seem to get it that it cost them a LOT of money if HMRC chase them for previous years.

Of course, at the moment, I'm just looking like the awkward d*ck in the clients eyes....

To be honest anyone who has been in a contract for four years should have long been replaced by a permanent employee anyway.

[LC99]

University stance on this

Hi,

First I would like to say that I was aware of the new legislation but had not been following the progress in detail as after constantly asking my accountants if the university (my client, direct invoicing) was part of this. I was told that I should be okay as Universities would not fall into the public sector. I accepted this and agreed with it as the university I am at has a very small government grant and the rest is privately generated. Well obviously this was wrong as an email has just gone out from the Uni's Chief Accountant regarding the new legislation. (not to me but I have been advised that I should have received it).

The upshot is that you have to fill out a 20 question questionnaire to justify that your contract is outside of IR35. Failure to fill this in will automatically put you inside IR35. After some discussions it appears that they may be leaning heavily on the side of caution and basing their decision mainly on just one of the answers. The question is 'Are the services provided of the type that might also be performed by an employee of the university' Now to me this question is very loosely put. Most IT jobs could be performed by someone else but that does not mean that they would be done correctly, efficiently, or in a timely manner. Hence why I am here as I also have a knack of extracting information out of people who are not IT literate. There is also a point of having the resources and the inclination for permanent staff to carry out the project tasks. (probably both moot points but nevertheless valid in this case) I was also advised (as I have read in this thread also) that if I chose to accept paying the Tax/NI on my invoice that I ran the risk of HMRC retrospectively checking previous contracts. I have had a few but have also had big breaks in between. Contractors who are contracted through agencies are not being targeted as it appears the university thinks this is down to the agency to sort out. I was thinking of switching to agency but after reading this thread it looks as though this may be a bad idea. My accountants also say it is irrelevant as it is still down to the client to sort agency contractors out, not sure on that one.

If the qualifying question above is to be taken as a means of determining who is in or out of IR35 it poses the question as to what defines a company or employment?

My examples below are basically daft, but then again this legislation seems daft.

I require a wall to be built in my house and a door painted. I could do both. the wall I would not do very well at all, the door I could do well but I don't want to do it. Does this mean that because there is a person in the house who could do both jobs I should be withholding tax and NI from the builder?

I engage a window cleaner who has his own company. I ask him to take his shoes off before he comes into the house (control) I tell him which windows to clean (direction) I give him water (Equipment - sort of) does that make him my employee?

So what determines a 'company' or employment?

So it's looking like a move to the private sector for me which I have been out of for some time and don't really want to go back to. The only reason I ended up contracting was because I could not get back into a permanent job when I left my last permanent position. I'm not a spring chicken any more. And all this coming at a point when entrepreneurs (I'm not one of those) should be being encouraged, especially with Brexit negotiations looming and this country making sure it can lead the way in every aspect. This kind of legislation will only make things worse. NHS short of money? well it's going to be even more short of money if projects have to be completed and rates go up. presumably the government will foot that one so it will take with one hand and give back in another way.... shooting yourself in the foot comes to mind.

All thoughts welcome. Though it does look as though I have no choice but to leave as even being told I am outside by my client does not seem like a guarantee from what I have read in this thread.

[psychocandy]

You couldnt make this up. I've been hassling agency for weeks now to get an answer, to push it up to consultancy client and them to push it up to PS.

Got an email today - "All sorted. You're outside scope of new PS IR35 regulations because you're contracted to a private company (i.e. the consultancy) and not a PS client".

Yes OK I'll take you're word for it! :-(

[jamesbrown]

You couldnt make this up. I've been hassling agency for weeks now to get an answer, to push it up to consultancy client and them to push it up to PS.

Got an email today - "All sorted. You're outside scope of new PS IR35 regulations because you're contracted to a private company (i.e. the consultancy) and not a PS client".

Yes OK I'll take you're word for it! :-(

You could, actually. Many agencies are going to say whatever they feel is necessary to defer/obfuscate until the very last minute, assuming their contractor's are, on average, idiots w/r to tax legislation and regulations more generally. Under the pressure of a last-minute decision, they'll then hope that fewer contractors bail. Sadly, it's probably a reasonable assumption.

[northernladuk]

You could, actually. Many agencies are going to say whatever they feel is necessary to defer/obfuscate until the very last minute, assuming their contractor's are, on average, idiots w/r to tax legislation and regulations more generally. Under the pressure of a last-minute decision, they'll then hope that fewer contractors bail. Sadly, it's probably a reasonable assumption.

This. It's going to be a pretty standard statement to many contractors I'd expect. I doubt it's been fully researched and they can be 100% sure but seems to be their best option at the moment.

[psychocandy]

This. It's going to be a pretty standard statement to many contractors I'd expect. I doubt it's been fully researched and they can be 100% sure but seems to be their best option at the moment.

Yes and from what I see a lot of contractors are going to fall for it. Seems to be, at this client anyway, I am the ONLY ONE whos kicked off about this. Its amazing.

But yes, at this point, agent does not know/does not care - just wants to get extension in the bag.

Like I said, many contractors already in contracts that overrun. I can see an almighty tulip storm come April when all parties (inc agency, PS body, consultancy) start to realise that maybe someone has got to pay the employer NI.

[teapot418]

Yes and from what I see a lot of contractors are going to fall for it. Seems to be, at this client anyway, I am the ONLY ONE whos kicked off about this. Its amazing.

But yes, at this point, agent does not know/does not care - just wants to get extension in the bag.

Like I said, many contractors already in contracts that overrun. I can see an almighty tulip storm come April when all parties (inc agency, PS body, consultancy) start to realise that maybe someone has got to pay the employer NI.

I wonder what happens if nobody realises - i.e if the client/consultancy/agent all don't realise they're supposed to be assessing the consultancy contractors.