Appeal Process

[MrMarkyMark]

Continuing to work in April in a contract deemed inside IR35 is going to be far harder to defend than a decision to leave in March due to you believing the contract was outside with the end client thinking it was inside.

In the former case you are implicitly agreeing that the inside IR35 decision may be valid, in the latter case you are explicitly disagreeing that the contract was inside..

Granted they may both end up with HMRC knocking on your door but I think the latter option is far more defendable...

Interesting point, you are, but with the caveat that you have to fight your case, not roll over and sign an inside contract as an alternative.

[eek]

Interesting point, you are, but with the caveat that you have to fight your case, not roll over and sign an inside contract as an alternative.

The idea that HMRC come after all people that leave is a very new addition and one that I can't see them doing. If its a money grab operation (as I suspect any retrospective attack would be), going after people who have left isn't going to get HMRC any easy money its just going to give them a lot of tribunals to fight.....

[northernladuk]

I'm not moaning. And my client is not public sector; the agent says it, and the client says it. But they are a university and come under freedom of information which makes the rules apply..

This is very worrying. There are plenty of articles aimed at Universities and colleges directly. Some of the articles are on Universities pages...

Off payroll workers – significant changes in compliance responsibilities - HE Matters People Special Spring 2016 - PwC UK

https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/finance/n...axlegislation/

IPSE have specifically pointed it out as well as far back as May last year.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/ir35-pub...rnment-changes

What constitutes a public sector body?

Any organisation that is legally required to respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Examples given are on page 12:

Government departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies
NHS
Police and fire authorities
Local authorities
Devolved administrations
Educational establishments including universities
BBC, Channel 4
Bank of England

Where you say 'the client says it'.. did they say they weren't PS but we know the legislation will apply to us or did they give you the impression that the weren't PS and it wouldn't apply. Either way if there had been any doubt whatsoever a couple of seconds on google could have clarified for you.

[MrMarkyMark]

The idea that HMRC come after all people that leave is a very new addition and one that I can't see them doing. If its a money grab operation (as I suspect any retrospective attack would be), going after people who have left isn't going to get HMRC any easy money its just going to give them a lot of tribunals to fight.....

Yep and if "you" (I meant avid readers, LOL) have a good memory things seemed to be panning out pretty much as per previous discussions.

[NetContractor]

This is very worrying. There are plenty of articles aimed at Universities and colleges directly. Some of the articles are on Universities pages...

Off payroll workers – significant changes in compliance responsibilities - HE Matters People Special Spring 2016 - PwC UK

https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/finance/n...axlegislation/

IPSE have specifically pointed it out as well as far back as May last year.

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/ir35-pub...rnment-changes



Where you say 'the client says it'.. did they say they weren't PS but we know the legislation will apply to us or did they give you the impression that the weren't PS and it wouldn't apply. Either way if there had been any doubt whatsoever a couple of seconds on google could have clarified for you.

Look, if I truly thought the client was NOT PS, why would I pay attention to this legislation. I have been contracting for 15 years; this is my longest contract, and is currently over 2 years. I saw this legislation coming into force, but just assumed it was Public Sector (as I knew it) (ie. Government). As I have only ever had 1 government role (and hated it) I never thought it affected me.

I'm not an idiot. However the first I knew this was an issue was when the agency called to "discuss the changes" about 3 weeks ago. I even discussed it with the contacts I have at the client site. Being a contractor, my contact with the client employees is very limited; I am the only developer/contractor on a team of 3. We work in a small office completely isolated, so there is no one else to provide an opinion. The other 2 people on the team are project manager and senior user and they have no idea what this legislation even is; and why would they as it is nothing to do with them. They are both of the opinion that universities are private sector, and never had reason to doubt it.

I really am sorry I posted anything on this forum, and won't be doing so again. There are a few people who seem to provide valuable, intellectual, and appreciated information. And others who just seem to judge, which is silly, because anyone in a PS contract staring down this particular barrel would look for any way to limit their liability, unless of course they are a far left liberal who thinks everyone should be the same regardless of intellect, ability, experience, or how hard you work.

Anyway....I think I got the answer I was looking for. My original query is resolved. thanks.

[DotasScandal]

The idea that HMRC come after all people that leave is a very new addition and one that I can't see them doing. If its a money grab operation (as I suspect any retrospective attack would be), going after people who have left isn't going to get HMRC any easy money its just going to give them a lot of tribunals to fight.....

Unless they turn the tables on "people" again, and extend the principle of APNs to IR35 disputes? No tribunal needed, onus on the contractor to "prove" status. Money in. Problem solved.
For now they will be building lists. To be used at a later time.

You read it here first.

[eek]

Unless they turn the tables on "people" again, and extend the principle of APNs to IR35 disputes? No tribunal needed, onus on the contractor to "prove" status. Money in. Problem solved.
For now they will be building lists. To be used at a later time.

You read it here first.

Not quite because with schemes you had 300+ members using an identical payment method and multiple schemes using identical versions of that payment method. Hence once one person on one scheme was found to be in the "wrong" the other scheme members and the other similar schemes have a problem.

Until April IR35 was dependent on how an individual person worked on an individual project / client site. And the way I work with a client is different from how someone else works so each case is by definition individual and they cannot easily group them together....

However, and we have stated this elsewhere so you are not the first to say it - if HMRC find a client / agency with multiple people listed as outside when they are not HMRC will in the first case go after the agency for the money owed. If that agency no longer exists its possible that they may then go against each individual contractor...

And if you haven't guessed why I now say that you want a big agency if you get an outside IR35 Public sector role - the paragraph should give you the explanation...

[DotasScandal]

Not quite because with schemes you had 300+ members using an identical payment method and multiple schemes using identical versions of that payment method. Hence once one person on one scheme was found to be in the "wrong" the other scheme members and the other similar schemes have a problem

The above statement betrays that you know little about how APNs work.
To date, only one contractor, of one (rather exotic) "scheme", has been found to be "in the wrong" (Mr. Boyle).
No other schemes used by contractors nor individual contractors have been found to be "in the wrong".
Well, guess what? they've been carpet-bombed with APNs regardless.
Whether there are 10 schemes with 1000 users each or 10000 schemes with one user each is completely irrelevant.
That is because APNs are issued not based on any "right or wrong", but solely based on declaration of participation in an arrangement previously registered with HMRC (sometimes 10-12 years before the APN was issued - see DOTAS system).
So, this system is perfectly transposable to contractors and PSCs, and would require only minor tweaks (e.g. using the aforementioned list rather than DOTAS declarations to target relevant individuals).
How it could work? They'll see your name on the list, send you an non-appealable demand for a "retrospective payment on account" for all the years you've been contracting, and leave it to you to challenge it through the courts (if you have any funds left to pay barrister and court fees).
The onus is on you (and you better believe HMRC will do everything to stall proceedings so it never gets to court)
Not that I want to give them ideas or anything. But I'm sure they're working on it.

[northernladuk]

I am the only developer/contractor on a team of 3. We work in a small office completely isolated, so there is no one else to provide an opinion. The other 2 people on the team are project manager and senior user and they have no idea what this legislation even is; and why would they as it is nothing to do with them. They are both of the opinion that universities are private sector, and never had reason to doubt it.

Am not having a go, just discussing it.. But it's no wonder no one is coming back to you. Sounds like they've forgotten you. That said 2 years (and many to come I expect) based on that setup. It's going to be extremely difficult to look like any but part and parcel and therefore inside? That sounds like a bum on a seat if I've ever seen one. If it wasn't you doing it it would be a permie. After two years it has to be an enduring role. I think you're only option is to leave... gracefully. That is a disaster waiting to happen IMO.

[eek]

Gibberish with massive leaps in imagination not backed up with any logic or facts as to what might be different between DOTAS scheme users and the outside world.

Sorry, but you are getting very, very boring with your combination of woe is me and HMRC will extend the pain I'm getting due to personal stupidity / greed to absolutely everyone else.... I'm going to put you on ignore as I suspect virtually everyone else already has done...