The Review and "Retro" IR35 Investigations

[ComplianceLady]

interesting this ... so do you think a statement from the client stating (in bold) that would be of benefit and is worth pushing for ... certainly be something to file away with the insurance in my closed company file !

My personal view is that it's worth getting. I would say that clients should only issue an SDS for outside. If they think a role is inside post April then they should terminate giving reason as 'Change to working practices' and offer a new umbrella/PAYE contract. It's not cast iron but I think it leaves contractors in a better position.

[WordIsBond]

So far I think it was believed that no determination=ban PSCs was better that inside determination.
With this new POV what is the silver bullet for a contractor when they are offered PAYE - umbrella or employment? Change agency? Other?

The only silver bullet is to have iron-clad evidence that your pre-April role was outside.

No determination/PSC ban is possibly better than inside determination but I've argued in the OP that HMRC may well end up pursuing them on the same basis. If I were staying I'd certainly rather stay via brolly than inside.

Employment is safer than brolly, IMO. There's then no third party (agency) in between, it's clearly a different relationship even if the role is similar. Contractors have been offered employment, and taken it, forever. Guy comes in, does a job, client says, "Hey, we could use someone with your skills permanently, here's an offer," and he accepts. I hired two contractors as perms back in my perm mgmt days.

If you stay brolly at least change agency if you can, that lessens the risk that they'll match up before and after. IMO.

If you stay inside in any of these ways I would definitely close the company, it also helps mitigate the risk. IMO.

[LondonManc]

My personal view is that it's worth getting. I would say that clients should only issue an SDS for outside. If they think a role is inside post April then they should terminate giving reason as 'Change to working practices' and offer a new umbrella/PAYE contract. It's not cast iron but I think it leaves contractors in a better position.

"Should" is great. Blanket bans are a reality.

If you go down the route of fair assessment, a client could reasonably argue for role-based assessments rather than contract-by-contract. Then a split between senior and non-senior people and they'll be able to get a reasonable grid of who's inside and who is outside. Working practices and contracts can then be aligned accordingly, in an ideal world.

[WordIsBond]

interesting this ... so do you think a statement from the client stating (in bold) that would be of benefit and is worth pushing for ... certainly be something to file away with the insurance in my closed company file !

I agree that if the client will make such a statement it is helpful. And I can't see any reason the client should be unwilling.

It may not help all that much if you keep your company open but it at least counters the argument that "they did this because you should have been inside all along". And I think it would definitely make it harder for them to hold you personally liable in the event of your company being closed.

[LondonManc]

It won't just be IT, nursing will be taking a hammering too. Which will make HMRC about as popular as a colonoscopy with a cactus.

[rambaugh]

Employment is safer than brolly, IMO. There's then no third party (agency) in between, it's clearly a different relationship even if the role is similar. Contractors have been offered employment, and taken it, forever. Guy comes in, does a job, client says, "Hey, we could use someone with your skills permanently, here's an offer," and he accepts. I hired two contractors as perms back in my perm mgmt days.

If you stay brolly at least change agency if you can, that lessens the risk that they'll match up before and after. IMO.

If you stay inside in any of these ways I would definitely close the company, it also helps mitigate the risk. IMO.

If you're offered an FTC post April 5th and accept will this be the same thing as permanent employment ?

[northernladuk]

If you're offered an FTC post April 5th and accept will this be the same thing as permanent employment ?

An FTC is a contract of employment. Check the Gov pages on what an FTC is.

[ladymuck]

An FTC is a contract of employment. Check the Gov pages on what an FTC is.

Fixed-term employment contracts - GOV.UK

Employment status - GOV.UK

[rambaugh]

So can it be argued that transitioning with the same client from a limited co. contract (pre april 5) to a fixed term employment contract is similar in terms of risk with regards to retrospective HMRC action as transitioning from contract to permanent employment?

Given point made above that if you were going permanent it would be safer and less risky than continuing with the same client via an agency or brolly then the question I had was whether HMRC would regard an FTC as being the same thing as permanent employment.

As discussed https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...-day-rate.html there are some large organisations using FTC's as a way to lure and retain contractors. What's the view on the risk of retrospective action if you start working for the same client under an FTC after they've blanket assessed all their contractors as inside IR35 ?

[northernladuk]

So can it be argued that transitioning with the same client from a limited co. contract (pre april 5) to a fixed term employment contract is similar in terms of risk with regards to retrospective HMRC action as transitioning from contract to permanent employment?

As it says in the links FTC IS a contract of employment.

Given point made above that if you were going permanent it would be safer and less risky than continuing with the same client via an agency or brolly then the question I had was whether HMRC would regard an FTC as being the same thing as permanent employment.

You know the answer to that now.

As discussed https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...-day-rate.html there are some large organisations using FTC's as a way to lure and retain contractors. What's the view on the risk of retrospective action if you start working for the same client under an FTC after they've blanket assessed all their contractors as inside IR35 ?

You know the answer to this now?