Retrospective IR35 investigations

[LoanCharged]

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!

This is a non-issue according to HAYS! They told a packed room of over 100 of their contractors during an IR35 Reform event on Wednesday that “experts working with this legislation, believe any risk is slim”. This was their answer to the number 1 FAQ question.

I mean, imagine the fees they would lose if contractors did not stay with them and the client and convert to PAYE. Talk about self-serving advice.

[LondonManc]

Please delete this account - like you deleted my response.

Meanwhile:
1) educated yourself on the differences between tax evasion & tax avoidance
2) learn to argue your point. Saying "You are wrong" is not an argument
3) Dont use moderator status as a bully pulpit mechanism

I think you had a reasonable point but:
1/ Your analogy was a bit crap for the situation
2/ You were too definite in your statements

If your contract and working practices were deemed inside by a QDOS review and you then claimed they were changed but weren't, then I'd agree, fraud/tax evasion.
If the agent and client have both told you that the role is outside but you failed to get a review, I'd argue that you'd be fine. The new legislation has simply caused panic among clients who are slopy shouldered at best and gullible enough to be badly advised by a gibbon with a vested interest in inserting his consultancy staff into ClientCo at worst. If your contract and working practices were reviewed and deemed outside before and you have responsibly gathered evidence while working there to confirm it, HMRC wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact that ClientCo have had a panicky brainfart and deemed your new contract inside means that you have to accept that but that you can now either; walk away, because you don't want to work inside IR35, or accept it is inside and modify your working practices to gather evidence that you are behaving like and moreover being treated like a worker so that you can make a grab in a couple of years for retrospective holiday and sick pay that you weren't paid at the time.

Personally I feel cojak should have locked the thread for a while and pm'd you about it but every other day there's someone jumping on here and failing to search because they think theirs is a new issue that nobody else has posted on here about. But, having done it elsewhere, I'm happy to confirm that forum moderation is a thankless task. Rather than quit, you too should have handled it better.

As for this bellend.....

you Still here?

Shame you are.

[northernladuk]

no official organisation has advised me that I have not provided my NI number. I would have thought by now if there were any issues, I would have been advised.

Just to be clear. Supplying your NI number has absolutely sweet diddly squat to do with IR35. I've read every IR35 article for years and many of the cases and not once, ever, did providing an NI number come up.

[contractorcontractor]

I think you had a reasonable point but:
1/ Your analogy was a bit crap for the situation
2/ You were too definite in your statements

If your contract and working practices were deemed inside by a QDOS review and you then claimed they were changed but weren't, then I'd agree, fraud/tax evasion.
If the agent and client have both told you that the role is outside but you failed to get a review, I'd argue that you'd be fine. The new legislation has simply caused panic among clients who are slopy shouldered at best and gullible enough to be badly advised by a gibbon with a vested interest in inserting his consultancy staff into ClientCo at worst. If your contract and working practices were reviewed and deemed outside before and you have responsibly gathered evidence while working there to confirm it, HMRC wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact that ClientCo have had a panicky brainfart and deemed your new contract inside means that you have to accept that but that you can now either; walk away, because you don't want to work inside IR35, or accept it is inside and modify your working practices to gather evidence that you are behaving like and moreover being treated like a worker so that you can make a grab in a couple of years for retrospective holiday and sick pay that you weren't paid at the time.

Personally I feel cojak should have locked the thread for a while and pm'd you about it but every other day there's someone jumping on here and failing to search because they think theirs is a new issue that nobody else has posted on here about. But, having done it elsewhere, I'm happy to confirm that forum moderation is a thankless task. Rather than quit, you too should have handled it better.

As for this bellend.....



Shame you are.

dont mind someone saying my analogy is a bit crap, I'd disagree, but better than "you are wrong and banned"

Thanks for the reply

[JohntheBike]

Just to be clear. Supplying your NI number has absolutely sweet diddly squat to do with IR35. I've read every IR35 article for years and many of the cases and not once, ever, did providing an NI number come up.

Refusing to supply my NI number, is about ensuring that no one can be designated an employer of mine because they hold that info. I'm re-inforcing my assertion that I'm independent from my client, which is just another approach to mitigate any claim that I could be a disguised employee of my client. No business supplies the NI details of it's employees to another business. I think that has something to do with IR35 somehow.

[JohntheBike]

I guess you know better than the government. You must supply an NI number if you have one. If you don't have one then you must supply gender and date of birth.


How to use the employment intermediaries template - GOV.UK


3.3 National Insurance number

‘Worker National Insurance number’ must be included if the worker has one. If they don’t have a National Insurance number, there must be a gender and date of birth. If there is a National Insurance number it must be formatted as 2 letters then 6 numbers then A, B, C, D or a space, without any spaces between the sections, like QQ123456C or QQ123456.

I ask the question -

how much of what is listed is HMRC rules and what is statute?

Clearly working in the UK when you are not entitled to, I would say is a criminal offence. Not reporting the NI numbers of those you pay, may just be a breach of HMRC rules.

We don't necessarily have to follow their rules, but we have to follow statute. e.g. you don't have to reply to the "close company" question on your SA, as a "close company" isn't defined in statute. Also, when the SA included a question on "Personal Service Companies" many didn't answer the question, as such a company doesn't exist.

I'd guess that if someone had been breaking the law for a period of time, within the context of our work, then it would have been brought to their attention by now.

[northernladuk]

Refusing to supply my NI number, is about ensuring that no one can be designated an employer of mine because they hold that info. I'm re-inforcing my assertion that I'm independent from my client, which is just another approach to mitigate any claim that I could be a disguised employee of my client. No business supplies the NI details of it's employees to another business. I think that has something to do with IR35 somehow.

I thought I'd made it very clear.. But no. It appears not. But if it makes you feel warm and cuddly inside then you go ahead and think that.

Did providing NI come up in your tribunal?

[LondonManc]

dont mind someone saying my analogy is a bit crap, I'd disagree, but better than "you are wrong and banned"

Thanks for the reply

OK. I think your analogy is a bit crap because it's a black and white you're either, in effect, smuggling duty free cigs or you aren't. There is a defined limit that you're either breaching or not.
IR35 has never been that black or white or there wouldn't be topics and topics and topics on here and court cases that HMRC has created that have failed time and again.
If you've invoiced and been paid £100,000 but telling the taxman you've only been paid £60,000, that's something.
Opinions on IR35 insideness vary and knowledge and case law cause further variations.

[JohntheBike]

OK. I think your analogy is a bit crap because it's a black and white you're either, in effect, smuggling duty free cigs or you aren't. There is a defined limit that you're either breaching or not.
IR35 has never been that black or white or there wouldn't be topics and topics and topics on here and court cases that HMRC has created that have failed time and again.
If you've invoiced and been paid £100,000 but telling the taxman you've only been paid £60,000, that's something.
Opinions on IR35 insideness vary and knowledge and case law cause further variations.

agreed

[JohntheBike]

I thought I'd made it very clear.. But no. It appears not. But if it makes you feel warm and cuddly inside then you go ahead and think that.

Did providing NI come up in your tribunal?

as I've said, I've never knowingly supplied my NI number to any private organisation. This is the advice of the DWP.