Outside IR35 contractors 'shown the door'

[cojak]

Further fallout to IR35 reform hit at HSBC too, where some contractors who individually met with HR to prove ‘outside IR35’ status were shocked to be terminated with immediate effect.

So much for that plan...

‘Domino effect’ of IR35 reform bites, as Lloyds, Barclays and GSK stop hiring limited company contractors

Say goodbye to pinning your hopes on an ET guys (just JtB really), clients aren't letting it get that far - policy, not lR35 designation gets around that one.

[cojak]

This is the real kicker - who would have guessed?

The problem for advisers, including Ms Walsh, is that contractors expect answers to these questions, but there are big unknowns, other than the fact that money is the motivator.

“I have no adequate advice to give because the decision has been made on the basis of cost and perception of risk, not the adherence to tax law,” she said, referring to Barclays and Lloyds.

We aren't the only ones looking at the risks...

[cojak]

But, saying that, things are rarely as good or as bad as they first appear.

Savvy clients may well start hoovering up outside contractors. Give it 18 months and things will have settled, just not in ways that many of us can predict at the moment.

Those 18 month are going to be pretty rough I think though.

[simes]

In today's sister article, it says;

Nudge letters to 1,500 GlaxoSmithKline contractors were a “very clever” ploy by HMRC to get the pharma to stop hiring limited company workers altogether, a former tax official says.

Is the 'very clever' an ironic statement?

Am only asking because isn't HMRC's task here to Increase their tax income? Because as elsewhere, turning everyone in the UK into a permanent status will result in a net decrease in tax income. As well as totally wrecking a flexible workforce.

Seems a lot of effort for naff all positive effect. Bless 'em.

[northernladuk]

I know I'm going to get a KUATB here but when did GSK announce their intentions?
We should have added that to the guy that started that huge thread about starting with them. Would have closed it a lot earlier.

On the people being walked, I got in to trouble at an inside gig with a public sector body. They refused to give me evidence of the determination and was warned off any further communication in this area in no uncertain terms. I pulled out the relevant paragraphs of the legislation which they probably didn't like.
It's an assumption but I'd take a guess the people walked did a little more than just enquire and became labelled as trouble makers.

[northernladuk]

But, saying that, things are rarely as good or as bad as they first appear.

Savvy clients may well start hoovering up outside contractors. Give it 18 months and things will have settled, just not in ways that many of us can predict at the moment.

Those 18 month are going to be pretty rough I think though .

Indeed. Certainly but in the meantime these clients are not somewhere you average bum seat IR35 noob needs to be. I think there will be a lot of work involved staying outside and riding the storm.
Hopefully those clients will add IR35 knowledge as part of the requirements when they are hoovering. Not just picking up the crap contractors that are the root of all this in the first place.

[JohntheBike]

So much for that plan...

‘Domino effect’ of IR35 reform bites, as Lloyds, Barclays and GSK stop hiring limited company contractors

Say goodbye to pinning your hopes on an ET guys (just JtB really)

, clients aren't letting it get that far - policy, not lR35 designation gets around that one.

Say goodbye to pinning your hopes on an ET guys (just JtB really)

personally, I'm not, from a financial perspective. However, I am advocating such action as a means of attacking IR35 which just might have some political effect.

However, anyone who adopts this approach would have to be in a very strong position, e.g. able to retire, or quitting contracting for other reasons. I can retire at any time, but chose to keep accepting renewals for personal reasons of my own.

However, my personal contract circumstances might change soon, which will present further options for me. As I've previously said, I'm keeping my powder dry for the moment, because I have no idea how things will transpire with my client. The recent unofficial approach regarding my duties was a bolt out of the blue, which clearly could have a major effect on my circumstances.

So, keeping my head down, i.e. I've not approached my client for clarification on their post April 2020 policy, has already proven to be a suitable approach.

On a not unrelated note, the Alcock case and the case that IPSE is supporting seem to have gone very quiet. Being cynical, perhaps they've been nobbled.

[Liberator]

I know I'm going to get a KUATB here but when did GSK announce their intentions?
We should have added that to the guy that started that huge thread about starting with them. Would have closed it a lot earlier.

News to me too. Does anyone have another source for GSK's decision? I can't find anything on the net confirming this.

[Maslins]

But, saying that, things are rarely as good or as bad as they first appear.

Savvy clients may well start hoovering up outside contractors. Give it 18 months and things will have settled, just not in ways that many of us can predict at the moment.

Those 18 month are going to be pretty rough I think though.

^^This.

As things stand, looks like there will still be options for outside IR35 opportunities with:
- "small" UK clients,
- overseas clients,
- braver big UK clients.
NB I appreciate for the first (and possibly second) it's not safe as such, with status determination remaining with the individual. However, in reality this means keep your wits about you and get contract reviews/IR35 insurance in place, but otherwise you can continue as is.

So yes, a few of the bigger corporates that to date have kept a lot of contractors in work look like they won't be viable options anymore, at least in the short term. However, I don't see this killing contracting #famouslastwords.

[CompoundOverload]

I have now received an email from the agency on behalf of my client (who ultimately make the IR35 decisions)....

Our review of the legislation and initial findings indicate that a significant proportion of roles will be ‘In Scope’ of the regulations, meaning that X could become liable for any unpaid tax and NI in relation to those roles. However at this stage I cannot confirm the scope determination or impact for individual roles or contractors. I appreciate your eagerness to understand the impact of X determination for you personally, and ask for your patience whilst we complete our assessment.

They have indicated a timeline of one months time for the review to be done and communicated to each of the contractors. This isn't ideal for me personally, as ultimately i wanted the decision to be made in the new year (when I would have already left the client). Now I am thinking that I should probably hand my notice in very soon (one month notice) before any decision has been communicated to me. Currently, my role is outside. QDOS reviewed contract (and passed) and I have IR35 TLC insurance.

However, based on the wording "a significant proportion of roles will be ‘In Scope’ of the regulations" makes me extremely nervous, as whilst I believe my role is currently outside (and should also be post April), the client could be nervous and react the way the banks have done.

Any advice any of you have would be most appreciated....