"HMRC will stand by the result given"

[teapot418]

"HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t
accurate."

Or not as the case may be..... Our friends at the revenue, clearly spooked by the amount of outside determinations being returned have been briefing NHS Finance Managers saying that they won't stand by the decision.

Is there a linky?

[LondonManc]

To sow doubt and confusion.

To give hope and keep contractors in the public sector.

[PartOfTheUnion]

It works both ways right?

So if HMRC are going to stand by the results from the ESS tool, what if some contractors who always assumed they were caught by IR35 and have being paying the PAYE/NI on 'deemed' salary all along are found to be outside iR35 because of their working practises (e.g. Direction & Control absent)? Can they get their PAYE/NI back?

[cojak]

"HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t
accurate."

Or not as the case may be..... Our friends at the revenue, clearly spooked by the amount of outside determinations being returned have been briefing NHS Finance Managers saying that they won't stand by the decision.

Quelle surprise...

[northernladuk]

Quelle surprise...

Indeed. It's only going to take one slip up and everyone is going to be back to looking over their shoulders just like we already do about IR35 already. Situations like the NHS poster is in where it looks like they are trying to manufacture it to keep him in are likely targets.

[RonBW]

Quelle surprise...

To be honest, I think that it's a massive surprise.

HMRC have publicly said that they will stand by the result of their tool unless the answers aren't genuine. This is embedded in the guidance to the tool, the public statements that they have made about it, and the final page giving you your result.

If HMRC turn around now or in the future and say "you used our tool, you gave honest answers, but we disagree with what we told you" just doesn't seem credible to me - and I can't see any court or tribunal accepting that HMRC are now saying "our tool gives false results". Because if it is giving a false outside determination based on genuine facts, that then opens the floodgates for anyone who had an inside determination to challenge that as well - because HMRC would essentially be saying "our tool is useless". HMRC would lose in court and would have to pay costs, the tool would be useless, the legislation would be in tatters - I just don't believe that they will turn round and contradict everything that they have said and written about it.

I'm open to persuasion based on some kind of evidence, but the loss to HMRC if they started to ignore the results that their tool gives based on accurate information would be far too high for them to bear.

[Andy Hallett]

Is there a linky?

It's what they say on the decision report!

I am hoping it is just a misinterpretation by the people I have spoken to, or a misinformed HMRC employee.

The HMRC have repeated to APSCo that they will stand by the decision of the tool, as such we will seek further reassurance. As the paying organisation we have the liability, having an evidence based determination means we have certainty on our risk.

[teapot418]

It's what they say on the decision report!

I am hoping it is just a misinterpretation by the people I have spoken to, or a misinformed HMRC employee.

The HMRC have repeated to APSCo that they will stand by the decision of the tool, as such we will seek further reassurance. As the paying organisation we have the liability, having an evidence based determination means we have certainty on our risk.

Am I missing something? I don't believe that wording has changed. It's saying if you fill it in accurately, they will stand by it.

[LandRover]

And then you read the line below about HMRC having 20 window to review your tax affairs

[Qdos Contractor]

Predictable. I'm very concerned about the false sense of security that the whole "we'll stand by the result" line has created. Particularly now the tool is so reliant on substitution which (I know from personal experience) HMRC inspectors spend months painstakingly trying to disprove.

There seems to be a misinterpretation that the tool has changed case law, or changed the way HMRC would attack an engagement in an enquiry.

To place any faith in a binary yes/no answer to the substitution question is risky, to say the least.

Seb