• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

New CEST

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    I've just tried it saying the client could reject a sub, still came out fine (Outside) with all else properly answered...

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by simes View Post
      I've just tried it saying the client could reject a sub, still came out fine (Outside) with all else properly answered...
      It is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.
      Doing a stroll around Windsor on 11 Sept 2 Oct for Alzheimer's Society. You can chuck me a few quid here if you like: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/lmallen-1

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
        It is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.
        Bugs me that buying kit and the like is excluded - I've a server, 2 desktops, one at home and one where I stay while working away, a laptop and an old 'spare' that is still refusing to die after almost 10 years! All of them need software and are kept up to date, so I'm signed up to the Action pack and have been for years. Yes these costs are not taken into account as part of the assessment.
        Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

        I preferred version 1!

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
          It is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.
          Quite possibly.

          Without having delved into this more deeply just yet, already (I use the word advisedly and with not a little humour) it is looking a lot fairer.

          Maybe now, if clients are asked to use this tool, and so long as they don't game-play it to secure an Inside verdict thereby assuring a risk free and, with the HMRC, communication free existence, we might already be on a surer footing.

          A bold and premature statement??

          And now, for the dissenters to that theory, let the games commence...

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by simes View Post
            Quite possibly.

            Without having delved into this more deeply just yet, already (I use the word advisedly and with not a little humour) it is looking a lot fairer.

            Maybe now, if clients are asked to use this tool, and so long as they don't game-play it to secure an Inside verdict thereby assuring a risk free and, with the HMRC, communication free existence, we might already be on a surer footing.

            A bold and premature statement??

            And now, for the dissenters to that theory, let the games commence...
            From the couple of goes i had at it, i tend to agree. If you can substitute, I assume its no longer seen as a PSC type contract.

            Comment


              #26
              HMRC will also not stand by results achieved through contrived arrangements, designed to get a particular outcome from the service. This would be treated as evidence of deliberate non-compliance, which can attract higher associated penalties
              Contrived? Designed to get a particular outcome?

              Like putting too much emphasis on Substitution which is hard if not impossible in some situations (highly niche skill, short timeframe)

              Or contrived like continuing to omit the key pillar - MOO - from the determination?

              In other words..
              HMRC: This is our game. We can win by rigging and cheating, but you can't because that's not fair.

              Comment


                #27
                Dave Chaplin reversed engineered the new tool and his comments are at Dave Chaplin on LinkedIn: "CEST UPDATE: Are the changes any good?



                Equally the CEST tool is HMRC's opinion of IR35 see Rebecca Seeley Harris on LinkedIn: "See my article on AccountingWeb on the new CEST updates and guidance.

                The tool is biased but, it's meant to be because it is HMRC's view of status.

                #employmentstatus #offpayroll #ir35"
                and HMRC think MOO is irrelevant - so they ignore it (the fact they always lose under it is neither here nor there in their eyes).
                merely at clientco for the entertainment

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by BoredBloke View Post
                  Bugs me that buying kit and the like is excluded - I've a server, 2 desktops, one at home and one where I stay while working away, a laptop and an old 'spare' that is still refusing to die after almost 10 years! All of them need software and are kept up to date, so I'm signed up to the Action pack and have been for years. Yes these costs are not taken into account as part of the assessment.
                  these costs are not taken into account as part of the assessment
                  this has always been deliberate on the part of HMRC and aptly demonstrates that irrespective of who else has been targeted by IR35, it has always been IT contractors who were the main target. Does a self employed painter and decorator invest in substantially more equipment than you have? I guess not.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by CheeseSlice View Post
                    Contrived? Designed to get a particular outcome?

                    Like putting too much emphasis on Substitution which is hard if not impossible in some situations (highly niche skill, short timeframe)

                    Or contrived like continuing to omit the key pillar - MOO - from the determination?

                    In other words..
                    HMRC: This is our game. We can win by rigging and cheating, but you can't because that's not fair.
                    HMRC: This is our game. We can win by rigging and cheating, but you can't because that's not fair.
                    precisely! It's always been their game, with their referee using their ball and playing on their pitch.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Access it via a VPN or you'll get an investigation letter through the post next week

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X