Disagreeing with client IR35 determination

[PhiltheGreek]

Not being worked on.

Awaiting a Finance Bill, which is awaiting a budget, which might otherwise have been expected around November. Now? Who knows.

That's a shame, isn't it. One would have to assume therefore, the more the better.

[jamesbrown]

How would you argue that? To whom would you put forward your argument?

For the ongoing contract, to the client. But you'd then be operating "on payroll".

For the past work, to HMRC if they came knocking and, ultimately, a tribunal judge if necessary. As I think you're implying, you'd be at a significant disadvantage with the client arguing the opposite. But they will look at the reality of the situation. There has always been a very good reason to collect evidence *during* a contract, because this situation has always existed. Typically, an investigation will happen years after the work was completed and the client may have no recollection of what happened and a completely different view about contractors than it has currently. So unless you have a blatantly outside B2B working relationship (not working onsite, periodic contact, fixed price etc.), then there is always a risk that the client might offer a negative (and unrealistic) view N years later and you need to prepare for it.

[sal]

This will only play any role during the transition period for existing contracts.

I would imagine if the new contract is deemed inside IR35 from the onset you will have zero recourse. At the very least I can see clients/agencies asking you to sign a waver not to challenge the status or straight out rule out ltd. and force you to umbrella.

Pointless law.

[jamesbrown]

That's a shame, isn't it. One would have to assume therefore, the more the better.

Yes, but, realistically, there *must* be a budget, one way or the other, so they can continue to raise revenue and spend. It's just a question of precisely when and who will be delivering it. But, let's face it, among the range of options, a Tory budget may be bad, but it could be worse...

[JohntheBike]

It's a valid question though. An inside-IR35 classification impacts the entire contract, all the more pertinent if you are on a long contract that crosses past the April payment threshold. This could be worse than the Loan Charge for some people!

Imagine if you have all the evidence to prove that you are outside IR35. You have the contract reviews, the QDOS insurance, the substitutions already effected, the freedom to work when and where you like etc. But the client doesn't care for any of that. You face a particularly obstinate and ignorant client that simply wishes to judge you within IR35 for their own peace of mind.

How would you argue that? To whom would you put forward your argument?

the ET?

[JohntheBike]

Yes, but, realistically, there *must* be a budget, one way or the other, so they can continue to raise revenue and spend. It's just a question of precisely when and who will be delivering it. But, let's face it, among the range of options, a Tory budget may be bad, but it could be worse...

but it could be worse

yes, a garden tax!

[northernladuk]

the ET?

At least 3 times today you've mentioned this. Back to your old ways I see

[cojak]

the ET?

There is absolutely no way that I would take on an ET - too expensive and too much of a gamble.

And I very much doubt that anyone else would either unless they are rich, proud AND stupid.

[BaldGuy]

I disagree with Client but they are firm in their approach

I just had a bizarre session with Client HR where they stated that 'Role' is assessed to be BAU and thus would be caught from April 2020.

They then said that due to temp nature of those roles they had filled using contractors. I said real reason was need for SME to back fill... so they should assess the need to "back fill" rather than the role (ideal would always be to get a FTE if they could).

HR were not even aware that for 90% of my multi-year year engagement i had been part time or ad-hoc (a week here and there, odd days or a few hours fixing issues) and I have concurrent contracts with other clients so how can I be caught (CEST says not caught).

Their view is that their legal/tax have set a low risk approach (every contractor caught) and they assess the role/vacancy (not the temp or ad-hoc services they bring in to fulfill it). No real option for appeal as they do not have authority to change approach.

There is also the issues brought up on other threads that their (wrong) opinion now could be used to challenge my current position. Madness - the whole thing.

[SussexSeagull]

There is absolutely no way that I would take on an ET - too expensive and too much of a gamble.

And I very much doubt that anyone else would either unless they are rich, proud AND stupid.

Not that I think it will do them any good but I imagine someone will.