Originally posted by WordIsBond
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!
Substitution???
Collapse
X
-
Blog? What blog...? -
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostI don't KNOW. I'm speculating.
It's not groundless speculation. It comes at a time when clients have to make a determination. So it clearly is IR35 related. Someone knows enough to know substitution matters.
OP has no obligation to educate his client on the intricacies of substitution vs subcontracting. All he has to do is convince them to say they'll accept a substitute, and it's an outside determination. He doesn't have to use the sub, and if HMRC asks if they'll accept a sub they say yes, and trot out this piece of paper to say, "We've done our due diligence, he's got an agreement with a company that will provide a SQEP and we'll accept that."
HMRC says, "Ok," and goes to find a softer target.
They aren't asking to have a MOU with the sub company, they are asking him to provide one. So the MOU states that OP's Ltd will engage SQEP's Ltd to provide the services, and pay for them, in the event that OP needs or desires a substitute. Sorted.
The OP speculates that the client is probably clueless and I agree with the OP.
Why this speculation? Most businesses have no concept of "substitution" w/r to suppliers because it is not a commercial concept, it is an employment law concept.
So I prefer my interpretation that the client is clueless about the meaning of "substitution" and the OP is more likely to get an agreement that looks like subcontracting unless they educate the client about what it means and education works more smoothly when it's handled by legal-person to legal-person (the more expensive contract reviewers will negotiate the finer points with a client).
Until April, the OP should care about the contractual/real terms w/r to IR35. After April, sure, the client carries the responsibility for an SDS and the fee payer carries the liability if it is wrong and the client took reasonable care when producing the SDS. So, in one sense, the OP shouldn't care post-April, but I think there's no harm in pointing them in a good direction.Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostExcept, as far as IR35 defence is concerned, it is not a substitute unless the new worker is working to the existing contract in its entirety under the exact same rates and Ts&Cs and for the original PSC.
The MOU being asked for is basically just evidence that the OP could provide a substitute: they wouldn't necessarily have to provide that particular substitute, but they have evidence that they could if they needed or wanted to.
Unless I've missed something.Comment
-
Originally posted by drmouse View PostBut they would be, or at least could be. The sub's company would be subcontracted for the period of the substitution to provide the sub to the OP's company, who would then provide them (under the same T&Cs) to the client. The client would still pay the OP's co the agreed rate, and the OP's co would pay the sub's co whatever rate they had negotiated (which could be higher or lower than what the OP's co was paid).
The MOU being asked for is basically just evidence that the OP could provide a substitute: they wouldn't necessarily have to provide that particular substitute, but they have evidence that they could if they needed or wanted to.
Unless I've missed something.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostAll you can evidence is that you understand how it works, you would be willing to resource them via job portals or something and put them in seamlessly as required. Bearing in mind this is all theory and guesswork it's not really going to count for much.
From April, that would translate into HMRC having to prove that the client couldn't have got a substitute from you (slight flip due to who they'd be going after). If the client has evidence that you have an available source for a sub, that's a step in the right direction.
And, quite frankly, the main thing contractors (at least those who are already compliantly and legitimately working outside IR35) have to do is reassure their clients that they are outside. We're used to accepting the risk of an investigation, the client isn't, so anything we can do to assuage their fears is a good thing (fig leaf or not).Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostMy point is that neither of us know what the client is asking.
The OP speculates that the client is probably clueless and I agree with the OP.
Why this speculation? Most businesses have no concept of "substitution" w/r to suppliers because it is not a commercial concept, it is an employment law concept.
So I prefer my interpretation that the client is clueless about the meaning of "substitution" and the OP is more likely to get an agreement that looks like subcontracting unless they educate the client about what it means and education works more smoothly when it's handled by legal-person to legal-person (the more expensive contract reviewers will negotiate the finer points with a client).
Until April, the OP should care about the contractual/real terms w/r to IR35. After April, sure, the client carries the responsibility for an SDS and the fee payer carries the liability if it is wrong and the client took reasonable care when producing the SDS. So, in one sense, the OP shouldn't care post-April, but I think there's no harm in pointing them in a good direction.
It's worrying the legislation changes kicks in in 9 weeks and this is how my clients acting.
I thought that by stating who the substitute is before any right is exercised is against ir35 anyway as it should be that I can send anyone. Not a particular person they vet first?Comment
-
Originally posted by drmouse View PostHowever, it's been shown in previous cases that it would not be up to you to prove you could supply a sub, but for HMRC to prove you couldn't. The burden of proof lies on HMRC.
From April, that would translate into HMRC having to prove that the client couldn't have got a substitute from you (slight flip due to who they'd be going after). If the client has evidence that you have an available source for a sub, that's a step in the right direction.
And, quite frankly, the main thing contractors (at least those who are already compliantly and legitimately working outside IR35) have to do is reassure their clients that they are outside. We're used to accepting the risk of an investigation, the client isn't, so anything we can do to assuage their fears is a good thing (fig leaf or not).
We've had this question a number of times and I've also pointed out that the role is assessed not the contractor. By asking the individual contractor of his capability they haven't assured the role, they've assured the contractor which is a bit backwards. They should tick the 'yes a sub can be applied', make the determination and then ask each supplier (contractor) if and how they can.
It's all a bit of a mess whichever way you come at it though.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostI don't think this one is about HMRC. After April the client has state to agree to accept a sub to provide an outside contract. Before they are making that decision they want to know if the contractor can properly supply one so they aren't requesting something that won't happen which (rightly or wrongly) may expose them to some risk. I don't think some shoddy bit of paper will do that.
We've had this question a number of times and I've also pointed out that the role is assessed not the contractor. By asking the individual contractor of his capability they haven't assured the role, they've assured the contractor which is a bit backwards. They should tick the 'yes a sub can be applied', make the determination and then ask each supplier (contractor) if and how they can.
It's all a bit of a mess whichever way you come at it though.
The end client needs to know a sub is available - so they find a large firm that can provide a suitably qualified sub for every position and then work backwards to the point that everything is fine.
The slightly mad logic goes I would prefer Eek but a TCS sub is acceptable and TCS have available subs so yep eek is outside as he can (via our and now his) TCS contract offer a sub.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostExcept, as far as IR35 defence is concerned, it is not a substitute unless the new worker is working to the existing contract in its entirety under the exact same rates and Ts&Cs and for the original PSC.
And all OP needs to care about is that the client is sufficiently satisfied to give an outside determination.
We're in a brave new world where we don't have to construct an ironclad case for HMRC, we have to convince the client.Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostMy point is that neither of us know what the client is asking.
The OP speculates that the client is probably clueless and I agree with the OP.
Why this speculation? Most businesses have no concept of "substitution" w/r to suppliers because it is not a commercial concept, it is an employment law concept.
So I prefer my interpretation that the client is clueless about the meaning of "substitution" and the OP is more likely to get an agreement that looks like subcontracting unless they educate the client about what it means and education works more smoothly when it's handled by legal-person to legal-person (the more expensive contract reviewers will negotiate the finer points with a client).
Until April, the OP should care about the contractual/real terms w/r to IR35. After April, sure, the client carries the responsibility for an SDS and the fee payer carries the liability if it is wrong and the client took reasonable care when producing the SDS. So, in one sense, the OP shouldn't care post-April, but I think there's no harm in pointing them in a good direction.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