Does anyone else feel like they are being financially ripped by the tax-man

[SciaticaSucks]

Blah.

I would also add that I think the contract should be between my Limited Co and client Limited Co, not the agency. If the client chooses to outsource recruitment, on-boarding, and payroll then that it is up to them, however the contract should be between supplier and client. That way there should be no ambiguity over the reality of the relationship.

How can it be right that I have a physical contract with an agency that is completely opposite to what the client considers working practice. This is even more relevant when I think back to the initial engagement. At that point I had no visibility of the agency<>client contract and no knowledge of the working practice. I accepted the role on the basis of the supplier<>agency contract which a year later proves to be a complete sham if the client is to be believed.

At one point I did toy with the idea of switching from outside to inside on the assumption that at least the new contract would emphasise the inside IR35 elements and subsequently be completely different to the existing contract. However, the new contract is exactly the same as before emphasising the outside IR35 elements, which according to the client do not exist.

The client and the agency are effectively in cahoots to create a scenario that suits them both. It is 'heads we win, tails you lose'. The only option for me was to quit, which I did.

Thank you again

[northernladuk]

I get what you are saying and I think agreeing to disagree is perfect middle ground. I think we are both on the right track on somethings and opposite on others... But that appears to be the past for you so get the clients paperwork saying outside for the new gig, store it in the defense file and carry on.

[SciaticaSucks]

Sounds good. I wonder what the clients view on this is...

Ahh they don't agree. Unlucky. They dictate the working practices as they are the client, we are the supplier. Contract is a sham if it doesn't match the WP as well. What we do on site and a contract between agent and us which has no relation to what the client actually wants isn't a strong indicator of the status of the role when the client is being asked what do they expect.

Thank you once again for your response. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point. You are arguing that whatever the clients says are the working practices are the working practices despite evidence to the contrary. For example, the client might state that should they ask me to clean the toilets I would be obliged to do that, when in reality the working practice is that I would never do that for the client. We don't need to re-visit old arguments about what constitutes control or MoO but suffice to say the client are quite happy to make things up to suit their purposes knowing that we have no recompense other than to quit. The fact that so many people have rolled over and accepted outside to inside would suggest they might have been correct.

[northernladuk]

I'll oblige. Finishing with existing client 3 April. Contract very much outside IR35 and I believe working practices also.

Sounds good. I wonder what the clients view on this is...

Client did SDS for all contractors and engineered inside IR35 determinations for all, based on incorrect working practices. Client very happy to ignore contract and true working practices to give them inside determination they wanted. Removes risk of HMRC from them and more importantly risk of bad publicity. As a consequence I terminated contract.

Ahh they don't agree. Unlucky. They dictate the working practices as they are the client, we are the supplier. Contract is a sham if it doesn't match the WP as well. What we do on site and a contract between agent and us which has no relation to what the client actually wants isn't a strong indicator of the status of the role when the client is being asked what do they expect.

Have a new contract lined up already which the client has already agreed to being outside IR35. Ironically, the delay of one year makes my position slightly worse in that the risk of an incorrect determination sits with me again rather than the client, however, with the SDS on the new contract stating outside IR35 I am more relaxed about this.

I think a lot depends on the question HMRC might ask of any client. Is it likely to be 'give me a list of all off-payroll employees with an SDS of inside IR35' and if that is the question would I be included as it was not their position to complete a SDS until after 5 April.

This won't happen. An SDS never came in to force so doesn't exist as a legal document. At best it's like a confirmation of arrangements which isn't a bad thing in the outside case. The new SDS means nothing legally but get a copy of it as it's great defence. Statements from the client have always been a good indicator as HMRC know from the off they are fighting you and the client so have an even bigger hill to climb.

So get the outside one to help you defend but I wouldn't worry about the inside ones pre April.

[webberg]

If we are talking about inside-IR35 contractors then they will ALWAYS pay more tax than the equivalent employee unless they are so stupid as to work for the same rate as the employee. the way IR35 works.

Can you demonstrate that in numbers?

[SciaticaSucks]

Out of interest.. Why do you want to know this? Isn't the only reason to gauge if you'll get away with staying outside if your SDS was inside?

I'll oblige. Finishing with existing client 3 April. Contract very much outside IR35 and I believe working practices also. Client did SDS for all contractors and engineered inside IR35 determinations for all, based on incorrect working practices. Client very happy to ignore contract and true working practices to give them inside determination they wanted. Removes risk of HMRC from them and more importantly risk of bad publicity. As a consequence I terminated contract.

Have a new contract lined up already which the client has already agreed to being outside IR35. Ironically, the delay of one year makes my position slightly worse in that the risk of an incorrect determination sits with me again rather than the client, however, with the SDS on the new contract stating outside IR35 I am more relaxed about this.

I think a lot depends on the question HMRC might ask of any client. Is it likely to be 'give me a list of all off-payroll employees with an SDS of inside IR35' and if that is the question would I be included as it was not their position to complete a SDS until after 5 April.

[northernladuk]

Out of interest.. you are constantly bashing members with your baseball bat, pushing the govt view, and often in a very condescending/abusive way. Posting constantly throughout business hours, do you have a job? Or is this it? What industry do you work in? And how do you function to meet all these requirements?

I work for HMRC. This is my job.

[mockedguy]

Out of interest.. Why do you want to know this? Isn't the only reason to gauge if you'll get away with staying outside if your SDS was inside?

Out of interest.. you are constantly bashing members with your baseball bat, pushing the govt view, and often in a very condescending/abusive way. Posting constantly throughout business hours, do you have a job? Or is this it? What industry do you work in? And how do you function to meet all these requirements?

[northernladuk]

Is anybody able to answer as to whether a client can inform HMRC of any SDS taken prior to 5 April when it was not their responsibility to do this until after that date?

Out of interest.. Why do you want to know this? Isn't the only reason to gauge if you'll get away with staying outside if your SDS was inside?

[SciaticaSucks]

Is anybody able to answer as to whether a client can inform HMRC of any SDS taken prior to 5 April when it was not their responsibility to do this until after that date?