• 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

  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by BoredBloke View Post
    So that's you being penalised for getting repeat business. Who makes this cr@p up?
    Look at it from the other direction - a lot of contractors are replacement for permanent staff. And someone who is continually renewed and accepts such renewals does look very similar to a permanent member of staff.

    On one side it's penalising repeat business on the other side the purpose of these IR35 changes is to discourage firms from using limited company contractors as a replacement for permanent staff.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I got an inside on repeat contracts which are clearly outside. Fortunately for me, my client is "small" so it's not an issue. My clientB which is equivalent to servicing the photcopier got an undecided.
    So that's you being penalised for getting repeat business. Who makes this cr@p up?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    Aye - new questions on IPR, whether you have to spend dosh before being reimbursed, whether your contracts are back to back, whether you have other clients etc.
    I can just about see back to back contracts as eventually everyone may become complacent.

    Other clients is however completely irrelevant given the case law regarding the specialist who was found to be inside and unable to claim expenses for a 1 afternoon a week consultancy job at another NHS trust.

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
    Is that on the new shiny version? I know you like to road-test each time it gets a tweak
    Aye - new questions on IPR, whether you have to spend dosh before being reimbursed, whether your contracts are back to back, whether you have other clients etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I got an inside on repeat contracts which are clearly outside. Fortunately for me, my client is "small" so it's not an issue. My clientB which is equivalent to servicing the photcopier got an undecided.
    Is that on the new shiny version? I know you like to road-test each time it gets a tweak

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
    How odd, I chose the end Client can reject the sub AND I would have to agree to any additional work (not the new SOW type option) and I got an outside determination. There must be something else you selected to bring you inside.
    I got an inside on repeat contracts which are clearly outside. Fortunately for me, my client is "small" so it's not an issue. My clientB which is equivalent to servicing the photcopier got an undecided.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
    I tried this out with a few scenarios.

    The Sub one is obviously outside IR35.

    Then I chose No Sub + Client can reject Sub. I went through the rest of the questions in a solid out-of-IR35 way (i.e. "No, that would require a new contract or formal working arrangement" and "No, you solely decide") and CEST actually gave me an outside determination. I was surprised.

    But then I changed one little thing on this question:
    Does your client have the right to move you from the task you originally agreed to do?
    I changed the answer from No, that would require a new contract or formal working arrangement to No, you would have to agree … and suddenly I am determined INSIDE IR35!

    Looks like the determination will hinge on the slightest thing, unless you have a silver bullet Sub.
    How odd, I chose the end Client can reject the sub AND I would have to agree to any additional work (not the new SOW type option) and I got an outside determination. There must be something else you selected to bring you inside.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChimpMaster
    replied
    I tried this out with a few scenarios.

    The Sub one is obviously outside IR35.

    Then I chose No Sub + Client can reject Sub. I went through the rest of the questions in a solid out-of-IR35 way (i.e. "No, that would require a new contract or formal working arrangement" and "No, you solely decide") and CEST actually gave me an outside determination. I was surprised.

    But then I changed one little thing on this question:
    Does your client have the right to move you from the task you originally agreed to do?
    I changed the answer from No, that would require a new contract or formal working arrangement to No, you would have to agree … and suddenly I am determined INSIDE IR35!

    Looks like the determination will hinge on the slightest thing, unless you have a silver bullet Sub.

    Leave a comment:


  • ComplianceLady
    replied
    Yes I've put a few scenarios through (which are all tested via QDOS, LH and others) and they seem to hang on substitution where it is in any way grey, the weighting is way out IMO. The guidance is good I think in the ESM, it explains the thinking - even where it's flawed but realistically no client is going to indulge in reading it. Some of the new questions I don't think can be answered pre-contract.

    I've seen a definite shift the last couple of months in clients moving away from CEST. When we started canvassing a lot said they were planning to use it but we've not got 1 client at the moment committed to using it. Whilst I'm not convinced business is prepared by any stretch, this is at least a positive outcome from the awareness raising being done by many.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
    Yes, just for kicks, I answered that I hadn't substituted but I could, and the client had no right to refuse. Then I went through all the other questions, every single one, and answered them as poorly as I could for IR35. It still showed outside, so an unfettered right to sub is still a silver bullet.

    Then, I answered that the client could reject substitution, and then I answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION the right way on Supervision, Direction, Control. Except for one -- I answered that I could be moved to a new task only if I agreed, rather than saying it would need a new contract. And it came back as unable to make a determination. That's right, if you decide how, when, and where to do the work, if you can't be moved to a new task without your approval, then it can't tell you that you are outside.

    Of course, in the real world, real businesses agree to do extra stuff all the time as part of their working relationship with their customers. It doesn't require a new contract, they just agree. "Oh, can you also replace my windscreen wiper?" "Sure, that will cost £X." "Cool." No, not cool, HMRC would say that means you might be controlled and an employee of the car owner, so they can't be certain you are outside.

    Stupid.
    Of course, in the real world, real businesses agree to do extra stuff all the time as part of their working relationship with their customers.
    I can't remember the technical term but in layman's terms it's variation of the contract by mutual agreement.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X