HMRC decision tool: doubts about the selected answers, results, implications, ...

[Mikmat]

IR35 tool expenses question

Is anyone else seeing a clear contradiction in the guidance for the expenses question in the toolkit, which I agree with previous threads appears to heavily weight the outcome? It states expenses 'should not apply to those incurred as a result from working away from home for a particular engagement', but what else is travel and subsistence incurred for? Then in what I see as a clear contradiction to this the guidance previously states that expenses are those necessary for the completion of the engagement - which accommodation and travel costs, when commuting is not feasible, surely are?

This guidance seems most unclear and unhelpful to me, and if a client interprets the situation in a way that legitimate, necessary expenses like this are considered 'not relevant' - the result of the calculator will be weighted to outside.

Anyone else getting/challenging/negotiating this issue?

Cheers

[Qdos Contractor]

It's been updated again...

[jamesbrown]

It's been updated again...

What, specifically, have you noticed?

If this ever had any credibility in a tribunal or court (it didn't), it certainly doesn't now

[Qdos Contractor]

What, specifically, have you noticed?

If this ever had any credibility in a tribunal or court (it didn't), it certainly doesn't now

More explanation about office holders, although I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

The substitution question has been reversed - so now you answer 'no' if you can send a substitute. Not quite sure why; perhaps too many people relying on RoS in HMRC's eyes?

In the 'criteria' for substitute they've change 'unwilling but not unable' to 'unwilling or unable'. A seemingly small but actually fairly significant tweak.

A big change to the rectifying faulty work options:

• Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, and would incur significant additional expenses or material costs
• Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, but wouldn't incur any costs
• No - the worker would put it right in their usual hours at the usual rate of pay, or for an additional fee
• No - the worker wouldn't be able to put it right because the work is time-specific or for a single event
• No – they wouldn't need to put it right

The first two could confuse people. What classes as 'significant additional expenses' and, with the second, surely time is a cost?

Seb

[jamesbrown]

More explanation about office holders, although I don't think it's as clear as it could be.

The substitution question has been reversed - so now you answer 'no' if you can send a substitute. Not quite sure why; perhaps too many people relying on RoS in HMRC's eyes?

In the 'criteria' for substitute they've change 'unwilling but not unable' to 'unwilling or unable'. A seemingly small but actually fairly significant tweak.

A big change to the rectifying faulty work options:

• Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, and would incur significant additional expenses or material costs
• Yes - the worker would have to put it right without an additional charge, but wouldn't incur any costs
• No - the worker would put it right in their usual hours at the usual rate of pay, or for an additional fee
• No - the worker wouldn't be able to put it right because the work is time-specific or for a single event
• No – they wouldn't need to put it right

The first two could confuse people. What classes as 'significant additional expenses' and, with the second, surely time is a cost?

Seb

Agreed, the sub change is significant and needed (for consistency w/ case law). The change to the rectification of faulty work clause is a total mess (time is most definitely an "expense", because it's time spent not earning elsewhere). Third time lucky?

[Andy Hallett]

Is anyone keeping a version log?

[Finance]

The changes make it harde to get outside.

If you don't have substitution you are going to now have to both have to pay your expenses and use your own vehicle to get out.

[northernladuk]

What if you've already been declared outside and the new version contradicts that?

[Finance]

Don't think I will mention the changes to my client.. no need to worry them unnecessarily.

[jamesbrown]

Incidentally, I see the current version is now 1.3.0-final.

Either they've been very busy, or they're about as good at software versioning as they are at understanding IR35 case law.

NLUK: they agreed to honour all decisions from the ESS. Insofar as it means anything (arguably, it doesn't, because the interpretation of the "correct inputs" is half the battle), then they will need to stand by each and every version at the time of input, hence the need to print and record the output.