Rishi Sunak confirms IR35 reform is going ahead w/o any major changes

[BolshieBastard]

Dear Lord, people believe a new in post Chancellor and HMRC both sayin' "Dont worry lads, we wont kick your arses from here to kingdom come. Honest!"

Some people here are wet behind the ears being reasonably new to contracting, they still dont understand how their 'loan' scheme and payments actually worked so can be forgiven a little. But any seasoned contractor thinking the first year is going to be ok because The Chancellor and particularly HMRC say so, well, all I can say is, better buy a few tubes of lube!

I can assure you from personaly experience when I agreed a course of action with HMRC, took that action then HMRC reneged on it. Be aware.

[BR14]

Dear Lord, people believe a new in post Chancellor and HMRC both sayin' "Dont worry lads, we wont kick your arses from here to kingdom come. Honest!"

Some people here are wet behind the ears being reasonably new to contracting, they still dont understand how their 'loan' scheme and payments actually worked so can be forgiven a little. But any seasoned contractor thinking the first year is going to be ok because The Chancellor and particularly HMRC say so, well, all I can say is, better buy a few tubes of lube!

I can assure you from personaly experience when I agreed a course of action with HMRC, took that action then HMRC reneged on it. Be aware.

you may say that... i couldn't possibly comment.

[eek]

I interpret Rishi's comments as meaning they won't crack down hard on incorrect determinations post-April - pretty useless to most of us who have been blanketed. I read nothing in his comments that suggests they will go soft on pre-April (if they are actually able to do anything about it of course).

The 'suspicion of fraud' bar that HMRC set is pretty low/loose. This is HMRC's defintion of fraud: ""The general term ‘fraud’ has a wide significance and there is no simple definition which covers the full range of conduct to which it may be applied." (EM5105).

I am starting to get the hang of this jive talk.

Nothing more than idle speculation and 2 pence tho.

my viewpoint is that unless a company really annoys HMRC they won’t be going full on investigation if the company says sorry and corrects the issue. The and we would like 700 additional cases to be taken into account can wait a while (until you have 2000 in the past three years as I joked earlier)

which frees up a lot of people to send letters to the public sector continuing contractors from April 2017 - after all you need justification for going after the April 2020 private sector continuing contractors

[SouWester]

...after all you need justification for going after the April 2020 private sector continuing contractors

While seeing the blanketing as a silver lining is going too far for my embittered soul, it may be argued that the widespread blanketing weakens HMRC's ability to pursue pre-April suspicions on a large scale. Outside>inside as seen in the report is a weak indicator because of the blanketing.

If this isn't already obvious to them, a few (more) failed cases on the trot should put paid to any serious efforts. This won't stop them from making people lives a misery via mail-merge accusations of course. Best get off that report.

My opinion is that if they can do you, they will. No doubt. But, their capability to do so is weakened by the blanketing.

[min]

Maybe they won’t look too hard retro, let’s face it they haven’t done that in the 20 years they have been able to. But they can’t just waive an incorrect determination if they find it.

Maybe. But they surly will go for the easy picks: like outside->PSC ban->same agency PAYE.
Hard to argue you werent in fact inside before if you are now PAYE for the same role, WPs, agency, everything really.
Even if you fight it and win at a tribunal/court it will be paid and ££££.

[WordIsBond]

Maybe they won’t look too hard retro, let’s face it they haven’t done that in the 20 years they have been able to. But they can’t just waive an incorrect determination if they find it.

If they want to do soft landing they can waive penalties on incorrect determinations if the client can give any evidence that they've tried to get it right.

In fact, they really could go further than that and say, 'We'll not chase you for back payments on this because you obviously were trying to get things right, but this determination is wrong and needs to be changed.'

Of course, they are wrong all the time, too. In fact, the very fact that they have been wrong on IR35 so many times should make them tread softly unless the case is crystal clear. Wouldn't it be ironic if they went hard after a client and the client fought and won. That would set all the wrong kinds of precedents (for them), wouldn't it?

[WordIsBond]

Maybe. But they surly will go for the easy picks: like outside->PSC ban->same agency PAYE.

That's not the easy picks. It's easy to argue that you only accepted it because of a PSC ban, not because you were inside before. The PSC ban is a matter of public record in most cases.

The easy targets are outside->inside SDS same agency. On those, the client has definitively said the role is inside. Now HMRC and the client are on the same side and against you. The client can't support you in arguing it was outside before because that would be acknowledging that their determination is wrong. It's you against the world and the world holds all the cards.

[jamesbrown]

That's not the easy picks. It's easy to argue that you only accepted it because of a PSC ban, not because you were inside before. The PSC ban is a matter of public record in most cases.

The easy targets are outside->inside SDS same agency. On those, the client has definitively said the role is inside. Now HMRC and the client are on the same side and against you. The client can't support you in arguing it was outside before because that would be acknowledging that their determination is wrong. It's you against the world and the world holds all the cards.

Right, and the paper trail is also most propitious to identifying the filthy tax avoider. Outside-to-inside at the same client and agency under the same hypothetical contract is the ripest of ripe fruits falling off the tree into their hands as they walk underneath it.

[min]

That's not the easy picks. It's easy to argue that you only accepted it because of a PSC ban, not because you were inside before. The PSC ban is a matter of public record in most cases.

The easy targets are outside->inside SDS same agency. On those, the client has definitively said the role is inside. Now HMRC and the client are on the same side and against you. The client can't support you in arguing it was outside before because that would be acknowledging that their determination is wrong. It's you against the world and the world holds all the cards.

You are right. Out->in is easier pick. Still, self determined outside, then PAYE for same agency/contract is easy enough for them to challenge and (potentially) win. Even if they dont win the hassle will be tremendous. Not sure I want to take such a risk.

[Paralytic]

Hard to argue you werent in fact inside before if you are now PAYE for the same role, WPs, agency, everything really.
Even if you fight it and win at a tribunal/court it will be paid and ££££.

Really? Its actually easy to argue:

Pre-April: I was self-determined outside. My professional review said so, my working practices said so, my client said so, CEST says so.

Pre-April: Legal at my client decided to remove risk and no longer engage with PSC.

Post April: I've gone PAYE/Ubmrella. It doesn't really matter now, but that doesn't change my Pre-April situation.

Yes, moving self-determined outside to PAYE/Umbrella might increase the *risk* of being investigated, but it does not (or should not) change what the outcome of what a pre-April investigation would be. That is based on your pre-April work, not on whether the client decided to make a policy decision.