Outsourcing advice

[eek]

If that HR department is anything similar to others at my clients, they are clueless and have no intention of finding workable solutions without others doing the leg work. OP has my sympathy.

OP has my sympathy, his company does not...

[riskycl]

OP has my sympathy, his company does not...

I'm the OP and I don't even have sympathy for the company

This and a few other issues have brought me close to walking myself!

Interesting to hear of others in the same situation at the other side of the table. You're not my contractor are you??

[riskycl]

I understand in saying this that this does not resolve your issue if you're dealing with HR and their policy. Quite possibly the most redundant and disruptive of departments in any given corporation, I sympathise.

.... Of course you might just have to have someone to tell your HR dept to eff off before being able to get on with business.

And lastly, please do not be put off by the high minded hostility of the few. The preserve of forums the world over, I fear.

Thanks - HR just seem to be intent on shutting down this whole IR35 problem by causing us resourcing gaps. Quite frustrating really. I was hoping to get some support further up the chain with regards to setting up a direct supplier contract but sadly this support hasn't been forthcoming.

Our HR function are seeking professional advice from one of the big business consultancies (won't name names) about the implications of outsourcing but I won't hold my breath, despite changing the way of working / delivery.

I'll update you how this plays out.

[simes]

Thanks - HR just seem to be intent on shutting down this whole IR35 problem by causing us resourcing gaps. Quite frustrating really. I was hoping to get some support further up the chain with regards to setting up a direct supplier contract but sadly this support hasn't been forthcoming.

Our HR function are seeking professional advice from one of the big business consultancies (won't name names) about the implications of outsourcing but I won't hold my breath, despite changing the way of working / delivery.

I'll update you how this plays out.

This will likely be a case of the blind leading the stupid.

I have seen elsewhere (apologies for repeating to those who have already read this) EY's understanding and advice for both Samsung and Sky, and they have totally screwed it up. MoO, one of IR35's three pillars of nearly 40 lesser pillars, being the most laugh-worthy of responses.

Unfortunately, I am not sure which department Should be the one taking the advice, but if one were to be found, advice Should be taken from a Qdos-like body where advice and insurances can be discussed and offered.

But again, one will first have to wrest the decision-making responsibility from the clammy hands of HR.

[WordIsBond]

Thanks - HR just seem to be intent on shutting down this whole IR35 problem by causing us resourcing gaps.

Tell them you'll be hiring an employee to replace the guy. It will cost as much in salary, plus there will be benefits. You'll be recommending it come out of their budget since they are the ones forcing you to take this action.

[BlueSharp]

Why not just take him on a self-employed basis. IR35 does not apply to the self employed and it also get around the blanket ban.

[ComplianceLady]

Thanks - HR just seem to be intent on shutting down this whole IR35 problem by causing us resourcing gaps. Quite frustrating really. I was hoping to get some support further up the chain with regards to setting up a direct supplier contract but sadly this support hasn't been forthcoming.

Our HR function are seeking professional advice from one of the big business consultancies (won't name names) about the implications of outsourcing but I won't hold my breath, despite changing the way of working / delivery.

I'll update you how this plays out.

Hi. As others of said using another body in the supply chain makes no difference. You need to assess for IR35. Whilst fixed price work makes is a clear B2B contract IR35 would still need to be assessed - if he's delivering services for which the money being paid to his PSC is primarily for and he's a shareholder in his PSC then it needs to be assessed.

The only legal way to avoid it (other than a PAYE option) is to potentially engage him as a sole trader. There are FCSA accredited umbrellas who offer it but you would need to attest that he's outside of SDC, substitution isn't a factor. It also means him taking on significantly more personal risk so may not be an option.

Honestly though I would be loathe to find a way around it. This is precisely the situation we've been banging on about for months & years and should be used as a way to make corporate see sense.

[BrilloPad]

Why not just take him on a self-employed basis. IR35 does not apply to the self employed and it also get around the blanket ban.

The whole point of IR35 was to add S44 to limited companies.

[eek]

Why not just take him on a self-employed basis. IR35 does not apply to the self employed and it also get around the blanket ban.

Personally I wouldn't be taking the risk - unlimited personal liability - no way mate.

[riskycl]

Hi. As others of said using another body in the supply chain makes no difference. You need to assess for IR35. Whilst fixed price work makes is a clear B2B contract IR35 would still need to be assessed - if he's delivering services for which the money being paid to his PSC is primarily for and he's a shareholder in his PSC then it needs to be assessed.

The only legal way to avoid it (other than a PAYE option) is to potentially engage him as a sole trader. There are FCSA accredited umbrellas who offer it but you would need to attest that he's outside of SDC, substitution isn't a factor. It also means him taking on significantly more personal risk so may not be an option.

Honestly though I would be loathe to find a way around it. This is precisely the situation we've been banging on about for months & years and should be used as a way to make corporate see sense.

Thank you, you seem well informed on the subject. Please forgive my ignorance. This may well be a stupid question...

If we use an outsourced development company to provide software development services on an ad-hoc basis (which we do today) would we have to assess their workers for IR35? I honestly don't think this is practical, we use numerous outsource providers for all kinds of IT systems and often pay them on a "time and materials" basis.

I genuinely don't know the answer to that question, I'm hoping it's a "no" but I suspect it could be an "it depends".

If the answer isn't a "no", then I have a second question which is if that outsourced company is overseas (Ukraine, India, Outer Mongolia), do we still have to assess their workers for IR35?

I suspect this boils down to whether they are delivering a finished "product" (working software) or a person? If so, I will propose we outsource this on a deliverables basis rather than time and materials.