Originally posted by jamesbrown
View Post
- 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!
Blanket IR35 Determination / "HR Policy Against PSC's"
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
I'm alright Jack -
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostYes I've understood. But I doubt very much that is illegal for a client to request an agent that all contractors are within IR35 in the same way that it is not illegal for them to request they can't contract via their PSCs, because in either case the agency will probably tell the contractor the same thing, i.e. it is a blanket approach to IR35.
The process surrounding the SDS is now a legislated requirement and it demands reasonable care. Failure to take reasonable care (or to comply with any subsequent status disagreement process, such as a response within 45 days) means that the client is now the Fee Payer.
There is no "request an agent that all contractors are within IR35". That thing doesn't happen. What happens is that the Fee Payer abides by the SDS received. The client is on the hook for the SDS. The problem with your suggestion, other than the misunderstanding of process, is that an SDS that looks like "let's dump them all inside IR35" is going to fail the reasonable care test. If the client has a bunch of contractors all doing exactly the same thing then, of course, it is fine to issue a similar SDS for each one of those individual contractors, but that is a long way from "dump everyone inside IR35" - the client will need to demonstrate that the role is the same and justify why that role is inside.
Again, keep it simple - that is what clients will do.Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostBy why take the risk? It isn't necessary.
The process surrounding the SDS is now a legislated requirement and it demands reasonable care. Failure to take reasonable care (or to comply with any subsequent status disagreement process, such as a response within 45 days) means that the client is now the Fee Payer.
There is no "request an agent that all contractors are within IR35". That thing doesn't happen. What happens is that the Fee Payer abides by the SDS received. The client is on the hook for the SDS. The problem with your suggestion, other than the misunderstanding of process, is that an SDS that looks like "let's dump them all inside IR35" is going to fail the reasonable care test. If the client has a bunch of contractors all doing exactly the same thing then, of course, it is fine to issue a similar SDS for each one of those individual contractors, but that is a long way from "dump everyone inside IR35" - the client will need to demonstrate that the role is the same and justify why that role is inside.
Again, keep it simple - that is what clients will do.
https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2839659
I'll quote the most useful bit.
Originally posted by Qdos Contractor View PostWhen it comes to the payment of those assessments - we found that allowing the client to require the fees paid by the contractor encouraged more (particularly those on the fence with PSC bans) to take a fair and compliant approach to their assessments as opposed to using the likes of CEST or banning contractors altogether. However this is entirely a commercial or policy decision on the part of the client.Last edited by eek; 29 December 2020, 13:55.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
In any case
ESM10014 - Employment Status Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK
It is acceptable for a client to make a determination for a group of workers, providing those workers are engaged under the same contractual terms and conditions, and in practice work under the same terms and conditions.
I can imagine HMRC would go through with a fine tooth comb, interviewing managers and picking holes in it if they were outside, but not if inside.Last edited by BlasterBates; 29 December 2020, 14:00.I'm alright JackComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostIn any case
ESM10014 - Employment Status Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK
and that is often the case, particularly with their preferred agency.
I can imagine HMRC would go through with a fine tooth comb, interviewing managers and picking holes in it if they were outside, but not if inside.
As I have pointed out for years we are usually just collateral damage in a battle to stop firms trying to outsource cheap labour.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostEnd clients are both risk adverse and cheapstakes so they won't be doing blanket assessments, they simply won't be allowing contractors to work via their own limited companies.
AverseComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostIn any case
ESM10014 - Employment Status Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK
and that is often the case, particularly with their preferred agency.
I can imagine HMRC would go through with a fine tooth comb, interviewing managers and picking holes in it if they were outside, but not if inside.
Why bother with "providing"? No need. Keep it simple, ban PSCs.Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post"providing". Didn't I just say that?
Why bother with "providing"? No need. Keep it simple, ban PSCs.I'm alright JackComment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostThe due care and attention on an SDS where there is no outstanding tax to be paid is simply theoretical.
The production of the SDS is faff and risk.
The client-led status disagreement process is faff and risk.
It's all unnecessary faff and risk. Ban PSCs, no faff, no risk, achieves the same goal.Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostIt isn't theoretical, it's just reduced because HMRC is scarier than MrCretinContracting Ltd.
The production of the SDS is faff and risk.
The client-led status disagreement process is faff and risk.
It's all unnecessary faff and risk. Ban PSCs, no faff, no risk, achieves the same goal.
You have to see it from the point of view of the client. If HR doesn't make a blanket decision to include all contractors inside IR35 then the PM's might run riot and and recruit a whole load of contractors outside IR35 with sloppy SDS's, this is a much bigger risk.Last edited by BlasterBates; 30 December 2020, 08:44.I'm alright JackComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment