Gov Facility Services gets IR35 status wrong

[JohntheBike]

Point 4 is incorrect. It's perfectly possible for 2 people to be performing the same role but the way they work being different enough that one is inside IR35 and 1 is outside.

If they have determined things based on a job role by job role basis it is a blanket approach which is incorrect.

It's worth emphasising this as the biggest reason why 2 people doing the same role will have different outcomes is due to Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) and MOO is the biggest flaw in the CEST tool as HMRC don't believe in it.

It's perfectly possible for 2 people to be performing the same role but the way they work being different enough that one is inside IR35 and 1 is outside

.

HMRC have now changed this propaganda approach to "two people earning the same income".

[DaveB]

Hello DaveB,

Very well done. Subsequent to your 'straight off the mark' input, the questions being sent, we now have a reply.

Please find below. I am not sure if there is evidence of the HMRC NOT standing by the output of their CessPool, sorry, CEST Tool. It depends on from whom the Challenge came, before they took the advice of the MoJ. Would the Challenge and Advice come from one and the same? Challenge from HMRC followed by Advice from MoJ? Thoughts?

Am happy to follow up...

...

Had the same reply through last night.

At this stage I think we can legitimately request further details on points 4 and 5 regarding the nature of the challenge, including it's source and the exact nature of the advice and guidance provided by the MoJ.

Regarding Eek's point above, that needs to be passed to someone better placed to challenge the potential blanket assessment by role and use of CEST. This would need to be a larger body such as IPSE. For all it's limitations it does have the resources and contacts to challenge this, especially if one of the contractors affected was a member willing to take it up with their support. Complaints from individuals not affected by it are likely to be ignored or fobbed off.

[simes]

Had the same reply through last night.

At this stage I think we can legitimately request further details on points 4 and 5 regarding the nature of the challenge, including it's source and the exact nature of the advice and guidance provided by the MoJ.

Done. Will revert once received.

Best.

[simes]

All,

Herewith. Arrived today.

1. The nature of the challenge
That the initial CEST off-payroll decision did not sufficiently consider the exact nature of the role that individual contractors would be undertaking, particularly in relation to Direction and Control.

2. The source of the challenge – this is not clear, but guessing to be HMRC
The MoJ Tax Centre of Excellence recommended a review of the tax status of all off-payroll workers.

3. The exact nature of the advice and guidance provided by the MoJ
In respect of Direction and Control - that GFSL did have some limited control over the day to day work of contractors, for example the requirement to attend update meetings on GFSL premises at a time scheduled by GFSL

Unless I am misunderstanding this, it seems that the contractors have been scuppered from within.

As for the essence of control being defined by being asked to attend a meeting not of your making or your time...! The word 'excessive' comes first to mind.

Coming second to mind are a whole host of other words.

Thoughts?