Retrospective IR35 investigations

[northernladuk]

I don't. But sometimes, as others do, a reality check doesn't go amiss.

From you?

I'm not a disguised employee and never have been. The EAT confirmed that up to the date of the judgement. Given that my MO is in essence exactly the same as it has always been, it is unlikely that HMRC would successfully challenge my position.

9 years (or whatever it is) at the same client is going to put a completely different spin on the situation.

I've always done as much as I can and probably more than most to maintain my independent position and prepare for a challenge under IR35 from HMRC. All of my contracts have been professionally assessed and found to be not subject to IR35. I successfully warded off one challenge from HMRC myself. I'm not claiming to be comfortable or bullet proof as NLUK might like to claim that I'm claiming.

You've stated categorically that you are untouchable a thousand times. We know because you trot the same 17 year old reason for it.

Just one example of being IR35 savvy, which Lance questions, I have never supplied my NI number to any agency. Through my solicitor I supplied a photo copy of my passport to the last agency, which they accepted as proof of my right to work in the UK.

When was the last time you engaged with an agency bearing in mind the time you've been in your gig? I think you will find the law has changed a number of times since then.

And when does providing NI and passports have anything to do with IR35?

Note that your passport doesn't contain your NI number and is a bona fide and unquestionable method for proving your right to work in the UK.

No one has ever denied that have they? It's in the guidance on how to prove you can work in the UK?

[WTFH]

9 years (or whatever it is) at the same client is going to put a completely different spin on the situation.

I think somewhere else he said it was 14+ years only working at the one place. It's possibly longer, but I suspect the company has changed hands a few times, so he'll argue that it was different ones he was working for.

[BR14]

usual tedious drivel.

it really is all about you, isn't it?
ffs.

[CompoundOverload]

be careful. There are caveats. The main one is that they will only fight the case if they believe there is a good chance of beating HMRC. If they think they will not win a case, then they will not fight it. This is the price you have to pay for covering retrospective investigations. Normal insurance of any kind wouldn't cover you for past events.

So they can cherry pick the cases they want to take on and thus have a 100% record. So realistically they will always have a 100% record because if any of their clients have a 50/50 case they won't go near it for fear of losing and having to make a pay out.

[CompoundOverload]

If you've been in outside engagements for the past 4 years but have now decided to give it up to go back to perm (with neither of your existing clients), out of interest, why would this raise a flag?

- You're not staying on with the client(s) you've previously worked with
- You have had enough of the uncertainty of the contracting world
- You want to cash out and sit back and have more security.

Why would this raise a flag?

I understand if you have stayed on with an existing client but from all the scaremongering I have read on various forums imply's it doesn't matter what the permutation is, if you've previously been a contractor but then switch to PAYE you are low hanging fruit?!

[ChimpMaster]

I think somewhere else he said it was 14+ years only working at the one place. It's possibly longer, but I suspect the company has changed hands a few times, so he'll argue that it was different ones he was working for.

Not taking sides but just an observation that length of time isn't a pointer to in/out IR35. It's whether the contractor allows themselves to become part and parcel of the client over that time, which is a real possibility the longer a contractor works at one client.

[northernladuk]

Not taking sides but just an observation that length of time isn't a pointer to in/out IR35. It's whether the contractor allows themselves to become part and parcel of the client over that time, which is a real possibility the longer a contractor works at one client.

Correct but it's been key in the JLJ partical win case so it's nice to trot out the theory but the practice is a whole different ball game. Bearing in mind there is case law now there is an argument to change that statement to 'length of time may not be pointer to in/out IR35 but (add caveats here)'

The simple statement as it stands, although maybe correct, is no longer helpful if that makes sense.

[JohntheBike]

I think somewhere else he said it was 14+ years only working at the one place. It's possibly longer, but I suspect the company has changed hands a few times, so he'll argue that it was different ones he was working for.

same client and agency from October 2005 until November 2018. Same client different agency from November 2018. And as NLUK has just posted, length of time at the same client has little bearing on your IR35 status. However, the increased remuneration of a contractor over a permie, has been used as a deciding factor in the ET.

and as I just said, NLUK is again claiming that I've claimed that I am untouchable. He clearly doesn't read carefully.

[JohntheBike]

So they can cherry pick the cases they want to take on and thus have a 100% record. So realistically they will always have a 100% record because if any of their clients have a 50/50 case they won't go near it for fear of losing and having to make a pay out.

exactly. But as I said, that is the price you have to pay for covering retrospective investigations in essence.

[PTP]

However, the increased remuneration of a contractor over a permie, has been used as a deciding factor in the ET.

Was that your ET or another?
I’ve always thought that I’d like to be able to use that as an argument but never seen it in IR35 articles I’ve read. I’d only get around 35k in perm vs 500-550 contract.


Just a thought
If it was a strong factor, then maybe doing the same job at same company on the far lower permie pay scale wouldn’t be such a bad move? [I still wouldn’t recommend it btw!! - this can’t be the case otherwise Id have seen it mentioned before]