Originally posted by Qdos Contractor
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
"HMRC will stand by the result given"
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Qdos Contractor View PostTo place any faith in a binary yes/no answer to the substitution question is risky, to say the least.
The first is with the substitution answered yes.
The second is to pull out if they challenge the substitution argument, and say, "Ok, well, I thought you might try to argue that. So I ran it again and answered 'no' on that one. You're wrong on substitution, but even so, here's the result if you were right on it."
The third is if they challenge my answers on SDC. In it, I said no to substitution and answered as if I were subject to SDC. I still end up outside on financial risk.
Saves me money, I won't be buying IR35 insurance from you anymore. Sorry.Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostThe problem with the tool is that it's patently inconsistent with case law on the necessary lack of fettering of the RoS and how expertise is treated w/r to D&C (to mention two issues).
And, it says "unwilling but not unable" on substitution.
And, it only counts the provision of equipment if your company didn't own it previously, which AFAIK has no basis in case law.
And, it basically concedes that the BET was a complete fiction by not giving any credit at all to items in the BET which would have ruled you out of IR35, like employing other fee earners.Comment
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostI agree, absolutely. I have three printed results in my IR35 file.
The first is with the substitution answered yes.
The second is to pull out if they challenge the substitution argument, and say, "Ok, well, I thought you might try to argue that. So I ran it again and answered 'no' on that one. You're wrong on substitution, but even so, here's the result if you were right on it."
The third is if they challenge my answers on SDC. In it, I said no to substitution and answered as if I were subject to SDC. I still end up outside on financial risk.
Saves me money, I won't be buying IR35 insurance from you anymore. Sorry.First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. But Gandhi never had to deal with HMRCComment
-
HMRC are fecking morons:
this was the text of the tool on the 3 march.
About this result HMRC won’t keep a record of this transaction for security reasons.
HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t accurate.
HMRC can review your taxes for up to 20 years
About this result HMRC won’t keep a record of this transaction for security reasons.
HMRC will stand by the result given unless a compliance check finds the information provided isn’t accurate.
HMRC won’t stand by results achieved through contrived arrangements designed to get a particular outcome from the service. This would be treated as evidence of deliberate non-compliance with associated higher penalties.
HMRC can review your taxes for up to 20 yearsComment
-
Don't be a hater.....
Seems to be a pretty standard caveat. You lie or concoct some dodgy get around then you are gonna have your pants pulled down. Doesn't seem unreasonable.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by pscont View PostScaremongering?
If you are contriving to evade tax, then there are higher penalties involved.First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. But Gandhi never had to deal with HMRCComment
-
I agree the test should be answered honestly by the end client.
But who and how will prove there was fixing of answers?
Or it is HMRC pulling the verdict out of their arse?Comment
-
Contrived Arrangements?
"HMRC won’t stand by results achieved through contrived arrangements designed to get a particular outcome from the service. This would be treated as evidence of deliberate non-compliance with associated higher penalties."
So if in 6 months time PSBs are actually structuring engagements (where appropriate) to have deliverable based payments and minimal SDC in order to pay a lower fee for a genuinely outside gig, is this a contrived arrangement?
I think I'm asking because I assumed that this legislation would naturally necessitate a bit of culture change and lead to different ways of working. Does this statement stop that?Comment
-
I am very concerned about all of this. I'm finding it extremely difficult to make sense of it all.
Whats worse is that I'll be starting a new project with a public sector client fairly soon. I'm very tempted to walk away from it..... Why is the government out to make my life difficult!Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- IR35: Control — updated for 2025-26 Yesterday 21:28
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 20:17
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 08:17
- ‘Subdued’ IT contractor jobs market took third tumble in a row in August Sep 25 08:07
- Are CVs medieval or just being misused? Sep 24 05:05
- Are CVs medieval or just being misused? Sep 23 21:05
- IR35: Mutuality Of Obligations — updated for 2025/26 Sep 23 05:22
- Only proactive IT contractors can survive recruitment firm closures Sep 22 07:32
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Sep 19 07:16
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Sep 18 21:16
Comment