• 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!

New contract offer

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    1/ Pre-March investigation would be interesting, given that the determination post-March is inside if client hang him out to dry.
    There's unlikely to be a pre-March investigation, if client gives him an outside SDS, unless there's a post-April investigation first. HMRC has thousands, probably tens of thousands, of easier targets than historical investigations of guys who have outside determinations.

    If HMRC goes after this case, it won't be the historical one they'll be chasing, they'll be chasing the client. So they would be the ones under pressure first. If they wobble on substitution in that case, they slit their own throats. If they don't, HMRC certainly isn't going to chase the historical contract.
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    2/ Amazing that a client would be so naive/not risk averse - I'd have to agree with ladymuck and consider what clauses are being inserted into the liabilities section of the contract. The agency won't be your friend in this situation.
    I'd agree on this, too. But I don't think any such clauses are enforceable, anyway.

    Comment

    Working...
    X