Originally posted by NFH
View Post
- 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!
Supply of services with no named workers always outside IR35?
Collapse
X
-
merely at clientco for the entertainment -
Originally posted by NFH View PostNot true. The total amount paid by the client is not then in turn paid via PAYE to the employees. I know of no consultancy that does this, because they would make no profit if they did so.
Yes, sometimes we do use contractors, which never caused a problem in the past.
Please can we get this back on topic?
It sounds like they consider you to be a PSC. Forget the legislation and your interpretation of it. You need the client to agree what you are and no amount of legal argument is going to aid that.
I take it you're on the client's PSL and there's no agency involved?See You Next TuesdayComment
-
The point is this. If Section 49(1)(a) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 is not satisfied, then the obligations of the proposed legislation upon the client all fall away. Contractors, agents and clients should be working together to find a way to ensure that Section 49(1)(a) is not satisfied, and the most obvious way to achieve this appears to be avoiding naming individual workers. A further argument in favour of this approach is that it is impossible to deduct PAYE in respect of an unspecified or unnamed worker, because an unspecified or unnamed worker does not have a tax code or National Insurance number.
I urge you all to look closely at the wording of the legislation, together with any relevant case law about interpretation of Section 49(1)(a).Comment
-
The point is you need to talk to your customer(s) to find out why they have chosen to drop your employee(s) from their PSL (if they have one), and see if you can convince them to change their mind about you.…Maybe we ain’t that young anymoreComment
-
I did choose the name NotAllThere quite deliberately, being fully aware of the connotations.
The point I was making is that IR35 has been around for 20 years. All these workarounds have already been considered. If they could work, they would have worked by now. All clients have had to do, and all they need to do now is have proper contracts for service. But they've not gone that way since pre-2020, the risk was on the consultant, and post-2020, it doesn't eliminate the risk.
Therefore why are end-clients not moving towards hiring named companies instead of hiring named individuals? This would get around all the problems of IR35.
Why should the client work with the agent and the contractor? What's in it for the client? For no effort "you must go through a brolly", they get the workers they want.
Originally posted by NFH View PostMaybe that's how you personally work, but some of us are genuinely in business with multiple employees and being hit equally by these proposed changes. Clients will no longer engage us as a company and instead want our employees to become employees of some umbrella, putting us out of business. It is killing genuine small consultancies as well as one-man-band personal service companies like you.
As I understand the rules, your problem only arises if you've got workers with 5% of more of the shares. If your workers don't, then you must convince your client the rules don't apply.Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!Comment
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostI did choose the name NotAllThere quite deliberately, being fully aware of the connotations. .'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by NFH View PostThe point is this. If Section 49(1)(a) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 is not satisfied, then the obligations of the proposed legislation upon the client all fall away. Contractors, agents and clients should be working together to find a way to ensure that Section 49(1)(a) is not satisfied, and the most obvious way to achieve this appears to be avoiding naming individual workers. A further argument in favour of this approach is that it is impossible to deduct PAYE in respect of an unspecified or unnamed worker, because an unspecified or unnamed worker does not have a tax code or National Insurance number.
I urge you all to look closely at the wording of the legislation, together with any relevant case law about interpretation of Section 49(1)(a).
And if I was an HR bod showing HMRC out through my door that wouldn't mean diddlysquat - it's easier and less risky to do what they've done.
But let's go with your post, you are expecting clients, agents and contractors to fight on the same side? Clients have already broken ranks and are running around like headless chickens.
Not sure what can be done tbh, but it does sound as if you have a plan..."I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
- Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...Comment
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostClients in my experience want specific individuals. If a NotAllThere Ltd has only one worker, who is MD and 50% shareholder, then hiring NotAllThere Ltd is the same as hiring NotAllThere.
Why should the client work with the agent and the contractor? What's in it for the client? For no effort "you must go through a brolly", they get the workers they want.Comment
-
Originally posted by NFH View PostI addressed this in the third paragraph of my original post. Clients would get the workers they want, even if no individual workers are named anywhere in the supply chain.
Clients, particularly banks, will have screening procedures before any of the supplying company’s consultants can gain access to the client’s buildings or systems. There is often a lead time of around one month for such screening, which conveniently matches the typical notice period for termination of the services.
So your scenario works, if at all, only with a subset of clients. I don't think your scenario works at all, HMRC will see through any process which guarantees a specific worker.
A named resource is a pointer to IR35. Not naming the resource is not a pointer against IR35. HMRC construct a hypothetical contract, and name the worker.Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!Comment
-
Originally posted by NFH View PostI addressed this in the third paragraph of my original post. Clients would get the workers they want, even if no individual workers are named anywhere in the supply chain.
Now you may be able to find a client willing to play this type of games but most are far too risk adverse to be the firm being made an example of.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
- 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