I've just tried it saying the client could reject a sub, still came out fine (Outside) with all else properly answered...
- 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.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
New CEST
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by simes View PostI've just tried it saying the client could reject a sub, still came out fine (Outside) with all else properly answered...Comment
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostIt is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.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
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostIt is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.
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
-
Originally posted by simes View PostQuite 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
-
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
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
-
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 entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by BoredBloke View PostBugs 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 assessmentComment
-
Originally posted by CheeseSlice View PostContrived? 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.Comment
-
Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment