The way in which HMRC select IR35 status reviews is based on a risk algorithm.
Being picked up for a status review on a particular contract does not "automatically" mean that previous (or later) contracts will also be subject to review.
It may be that the status review is started because HMRC has reviewed the roles on offer from a particular end client and has concerns that all those working in department X or recruited for role Y are possibly incorrectly claiming outside IR35 status.
As an example, it is clear that HMRC has identified as potential targets, TV front of camera talent and is going after them all presumably based on some central analysis/opinion that they have arrived at.
This approach of looking at companies operating in certain sectors or types of roles with particular features is far more likely than trying to identify individuals who may (or may not) be inclined to arrive at an incorrect IR35 decision.
Going after one individual at a time is just not efficient. Each investigation apparently takes around 18 months (FOI request answer) and if an officer were to spend an average of 2 hours a month plus supervisory time, HMRC might spend 50 hours on one case. Better to spend that on one company, one sector, one specific type of role? I think so.
Having said all this, if HMRC find that an individual has deliberately made an incorrect outside IR35 call, this will advance their risk score and leave them liable to further investigation.
Being picked up for a status review on a particular contract does not "automatically" mean that previous (or later) contracts will also be subject to review.
It may be that the status review is started because HMRC has reviewed the roles on offer from a particular end client and has concerns that all those working in department X or recruited for role Y are possibly incorrectly claiming outside IR35 status.
As an example, it is clear that HMRC has identified as potential targets, TV front of camera talent and is going after them all presumably based on some central analysis/opinion that they have arrived at.
This approach of looking at companies operating in certain sectors or types of roles with particular features is far more likely than trying to identify individuals who may (or may not) be inclined to arrive at an incorrect IR35 decision.
Going after one individual at a time is just not efficient. Each investigation apparently takes around 18 months (FOI request answer) and if an officer were to spend an average of 2 hours a month plus supervisory time, HMRC might spend 50 hours on one case. Better to spend that on one company, one sector, one specific type of role? I think so.
Having said all this, if HMRC find that an individual has deliberately made an incorrect outside IR35 call, this will advance their risk score and leave them liable to further investigation.
Comment