Retrospective IR35 investigations

[jamesbrown]

I'm willing to accept your argument, but do you have any specific quotes regarding HMRC where they have published specific guidelines and then simply ignored them, without a new act of parliament put in place

It is guidance, not legislation. There are plenty of examples of HMRC ignoring their own guidance or providing guidance that is in error as it relates to legislation. Whether they get away with it is another matter (witness the increasing number of judicial reviews).

https://www.tax.org.uk/sites/default...20response.pdf

Members report increasing instances of HMRC adopting an interpretation of the law
to bring in the greatest tax; rather than the right tax at the right time. This extends to
running contradictory arguments in different cases, and / or ignoring their own
published guidance, custom and practice, and relevant case-law.

[Smuz]

Oh Dear.

I guess you've never hear of the HMRC Connect System?

What HMRC's new Connect 'supercomputer' knows about you - BT

Connect (computer system) - Wikipedia

(Although my post here still stands.)

Cheers for the link. Certainly interesting times contemplating ones own appetite to risk.

I am wondering still how they would get the data that Person A working through Agency B is providing services to Client C. If they have access to bank accounts as they say then a trawl of Agency B's accounts you could link the cash coming in and then going out to Person A's business account but i'm sure that data would be pretty noisy.

Whatever option I ultimately go for I will be gathering as much data to defend my position as im assuming any path I choose could end up with some kind of nudge letter from HMRC depending on how they approach this.

What I definitely will not be doing is going from Outside to Umbrella with the same client in the same role, especially if there has been an inside SDS.

[Skint]

Dave Chaplin has posted on Linkedin that HMRC are already retrospectively investigating public sector contractors who have taken PAYE roles since the implementation of the new rules in the public sector. So much for HMRC's statements to the contrary. So in reality, whatever situation you find yourself in from April 2020, you will not be spared an IR35 retrospective investigation. Time to prime the weapons I think!

Dave's LinkedIn post begins "We are starting to hear..." and was a call for evidence, but it isn't clear whether any hard evidence has actually surfaced.

[Skint]

oh, dear, yet another thread full of headless chickens with twitching arses searching for the magic solution <which doesn't exist>

Some colleagues here think the magic solution is insurance. Qdos for one, have said that their IR35 Enquiry insurance cover is retrospective. So in the worst case, the individual switches from contract to umbrella (staying with same client, same project), HMRC open an enquiry, then go retrospective, it goes to court/tribunal, the individual loses, the insurance policy pays out...

[Lance]

Some colleagues here think the magic solution is insurance. Qdos for one, have said that their IR35 Enquiry insurance cover is retrospective. So in the worst case, the individual switches from contract to umbrella (staying with same client, same project), HMRC open an enquiry, then go retrospective, it goes to court/tribunal, the individual loses, the insurance policy pays out...

how many people have enough IR35 insurance to cover multiple years?
TLC35 can go up to £1400 a year. I dont know anyone who pays that.
Almost everyone has just £50k of cover, which will cover a year maybe (maybe 2 for some). So it's not a magic solution.

[Skint]

how many people have enough IR35 insurance to cover multiple years?
TLC35 can go up to £1400 a year. I dont know anyone who pays that.
Almost everyone has just £50k of cover, which will cover a year maybe (maybe 2 for some). So it's not a magic solution.

I don't know about any others but Qdos's cover is what they term a "claims made policy" which means it isn't designed to 'cover multiple years' but remains in force for as long as the individual keeps paying the premium. So if you do that and say HMRC open a retrospective enquiry in say November 2020 into your work for a client from say Jan 2015 to Nov 2020, then it's covered. Some people here think £1400 a year is worth paying, in order to (a) keep the income flowing now (the alternative is to sit on the bench, not earning) and (b) mitigate the retrospective enquiry risk.

[contractorcontractor]

If you accept "inside" for the same role that is already worked as "outside", you are saying that you admit evading tax previously.

Why sign a confession for a crime you never committed?

Current guidelines may say you are not a priority, but guidelines & priorities change - and priority isnt a Pass. Just as littering is not a priority, you still get a ticket when identified.

BTW If PII is required, it is clear indication of "outside", as employees are covered by company PII.

[cojak]

If you accept "inside" for the same role that is already worked as "outside", you are saying that you admit evading tax previously.

Why sign a confession for a crime you never committed?

Current guidelines may say you are not a priority, but guidelines & priorities change - and priority isnt a Pass. Just as littering is not a priority, you still get a ticket when identified.

BTW If PII is required, it is clear indication of "outside", as employees are covered by company PII.

You are wrong contractorcontractor - evasion is a criminal activity.

Working outside IR35 is an acceptable way of working - now and after April.

True, it will be harder to find these contracts, but that is different.

[contractorcontractor]

You are wrong contractorcontractor - evasion is a criminal activity.

Working outside IR35 is an acceptable way of working - now and after April.

Well milud, I put it to you, that not only am I correct, but it is the esteemed poster, what is incorrect.

Working outside is legal. However, saying that you are outside, whilst knowing to be inside, would most likely be considered as tax evasion.

[BrilloPad]

Well milud, I put it to you, that not only am I correct, but it is the esteemed poster, what is incorrect.

Working outside is legal. However, saying that you are outside, whilst knowing to be inside, would most likely be considered as tax evasion.

I believe it is avoidance. Though HMRC have no difference between avoidance and evasion.