24th Feb deadline for handing in your notice

[northernladuk]

I expect a lot of PSB and agencies will be doing similar for current contracts.

Based on what?

[breaktwister]

Based on what?

A number of agencies on this forum have been saying that they are contacting end-clients asking for IR35 determinations for current contractors, even those where contracts are due to end before 6th April. My agency is doing this.

I assume that the OP meant that MoJ was looking at current contractors and not their full historic records of all 6 month+ contracts.

[5000]

Not always the case. MoJ are asking for a review of ALL contracts of 6 months or more or over £220 per day. This is both retrospective and forward thinking and is NON Negotiable...

Please note that the public sector are required to do this anyway and that it may have nothing to do with the off payroll reform.

From the technical note:

3.Off-payroll working in the public sector tax legislation is separate from Treasury procurement rules which apply in central government. The Treasury rules broadly apply where staff are hired at a rate of £220 per day or on contracts of more than 6 months. These thresholds do not apply to the tax rules.

[pscont]

But they ARE paying the right taxes up until the 5th April under the contract that they are working to (at least if they had the contract review that passed the outside IR35 criteria and their working practices confirm this).

As they won't have a contract after this date to put through the new tool, there is nothing to compare against.

The tool (when available) is anonymous. However it generates a unique ID for every run. So a PSO bod can say we ran the tool for this guy and we got this ID and the current contract is inside.
My agent also will ask the PSO to determine the contracts, but they said it will be on a functional role basis - i.e. are the UAT testers in or out. So kind of a blanket decision in a sense, but this will not be reported to HMRC (I don't trust them not to).

[b r]

Not always the case. MoJ are asking for a review of ALL contracts of 6 months or more or over £220 per day. This is both retrospective and forward thinking and is NON Negotiable...

Sorry, but reading yesterdays article from the Agency on ContractorUK news they specifically said it was nothing to do with the contract and all about the working practices. So a contract review should be irrelevant, what they'll need to do is separately interview each contractor and hiring Manager plus then maybe review their actual work - or am I wrong?

The IR35 tests are based on working practice, not just what it says in the contract. Also note, the new legislation covers where the services are “performed personally by the worker”.*

April's off-payroll rules: what one contractor recruitment agency thinks :: Contractor UK

[northernladuk]

Sorry, but reading yesterdays article from the Agency on ContractorUK news they specifically said it was nothing to do with the contract and all about the working practices. So a contract review should be irrelevant, what they'll need to do is separately interview each contractor and hiring Manager plus then maybe review their actual work - or am I wrong?

The IR35 tests are based on working practice, not just what it says in the contract. Also note, the new legislation covers where the services are “performed personally by the worker”.*

April's off-payroll rules: what one contractor recruitment agency thinks :: Contractor UK

You are wrong. You've not taken the full context. Firstly this is an interview with an agent.. Hardly the best article to be taking fact from..
Secondly he actually said..

Rethink has seen an early version of the tool from HMRC which shows that it is the actual working practices that determine an IR35 status, not what the contract says.

So he is talking about the tool specifically. The tool won't ask you if you have this clause and that clause in the contract, it will ask about what you do on site. Just how the IR35 cases have gone.

If push comes to shove and you get investigated it the contract will make up part of your defense. It's well known that working practices will trump it but if you've got a solid contract to start it's going to help. If your contract says you are inside then you are probably screwed.

[b r]

You are wrong.

Hmm, don't think so and you do contradict yourself too:

If push comes to shove and you get investigated it the contract will make up part of your defense. It's well known that working practices will trump it but if you've got a solid contract to start it's going to help.

And tbh if the contract says inside, you're inside so it's irrelevant.

[northernladuk]

Hmm, don't think so and you do contradict yourself too:

Hmmm Not too sure where I see that I am contradicting myself. The tool focuses purely on the WP for it's determination. Having everything else in the background in order is just as important and that includes a well written and checked contract.

And tbh if the contract says inside, you're inside so it's irrelevant.

So make sure it isn't.

[RonBW]

The tool (when available) is anonymous. However it generates a unique ID for every run. So a PSO bod can say we ran the tool for this guy and we got this ID and the current contract is inside.

Or they could say that and say that it was outside. But unless there is an audit of who it was actually for, with a recorded trail of what questions were asked (HMRC has said that they will continue to develop and work on the tool) and what answers were given, it'll be interesting to see how strongly HMRC stick to their "we'll abide by the tool" statement in the future.

[LondonManc]

Or they could say that and say that it was outside. But unless there is an audit of who it was actually for, with a recorded trail of what questions were asked (HMRC has said that they will continue to develop and work on the tool) and what answers were given, it'll be interesting to see how strongly HMRC stick to their "we'll abide by the tool" statement in the future.

Especially when the set of "silver bullet" answers has been figured out.