Asked to pay for IR35 Assesment

[daydream]

At the start of the year, my end client informed all their contractors that they would be using QDOS for their IR35 assessment process. I was happy with this, as I am a QDOS Client, and have used their IR35 Contract Assessment process to assess the Client contract in the past.

The process dragged on, and no-one had received their assessment results by the time IR35 went away in March.

Preparing for the resurrection next year, the client has confirmed they will again be engaging QDOS. This time however, there is a twist - the contractors are expected to pay for their own assessments upfront. Also they are expected to pay for a re-assessment every six months.

Is this fairly normal?

The QDOS Tax Enquiry Insurance and Tax Liability Cover products include a "Free" Contract Assessment. With the Tax Liability moved from the Contractor to the Client, and the Contract Assessment done on behalf of the client, (whether or not they or the contractor pays), these products seem to me to become worthless.

[GhostofTarbera]

Normal for a business working outside IR35 as a business expense

Are you really inside IR35 all this time as a permie tractor?

What makes you outside ?


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[eek]

Normal for a business working outside IR35 as a business expense

Are you really inside IR35 all this time as a permie tractor?

What makes you outside ?


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

A better question would be exactly how long has the OP been working for the same client as I suspect any idea that he is outside IR35 is just in his mind.

[ladymuck]

As a thought experiment it's quite interesting. I don't have any answers, sadly.

If outside IR35, I'd see that as a cost of doing business. If inside IR35, I'd wonder how I could be a disguised employee if I'm subject to fees in order to obtain work that a person directly on the client's payroll would not incur.

I know there's way more to IR35 determination than being asked to pay a fee in order to obtain work from that client but there's an implication that, by being treated differently, my status with the client is different.

[eek]

As a thought experiment it's quite interesting. I don't have any answers, sadly.

If outside IR35, I'd see that as a cost of doing business. If inside IR35, I'd wonder how I could be a disguised employee if I'm subject to fees in order to obtain work that a person directly on the client's payroll would not incur.

I know there's way more to IR35 determination than being asked to pay a fee in order to obtain work from that client but there's an implication that, by being treated differently, my status with the client is different.

Actually as a thought experiment it's quite simple.

After April the end client is the person responsible for the determination - so they should be the people paying for that determination.

By asking the contractor to pay for the determination I would argue they are opening themselves up to a charge of not doing due diligence.

[ladymuck]

Actually as a thought experiment it's quite simple.

After April the end client is the person responsible for the determination - so they should be the people paying for that determination.

Spoilsport.

[eek]

Spoilsport.

It's one of those things where I can see why they wish to use the approach they are adopting - I just don't think they have thought through the consequences of asking for the lowest part of the chain (and the person from which responsibility has been removed) to pay for it

[ladymuck]

It's one of those things where I can see why they wish to use the approach they are adopting - I just don't think they have thought through the consequences of asking for the lowest part of the chain (and the person from which responsibility has been removed) to pay for it

I do agree, just poking fun

[daydream]

Actually as a thought experiment it's quite simple.

After April the end client is the person responsible for the determination - so they should be the people paying for that determination.

By asking the contractor to pay for the determination I would argue they are opening themselves up to a charge of not doing due diligence.

I have quite happily taken on the responsibility and liability until now. Hence having the insurance in place. Seems strange having both the responsibility and liability taken away, but still expected to pay, and for something that I have already paid for, indirectly.

Also the six monthly recheck seems like a license for someone to print money. Currently I only get the contract reviewed if there are substantial changes, (normally a new client).

[northernladuk]

I have quite happily taken on the responsibility and liability until now. Hence having the insurance in place. Seems strange having both the responsibility and liability taken away, but still expected to pay, and for something that I have already paid for, indirectly.

Also the six monthly recheck seems like a license for someone to print money. Currently I only get the contract reviewed if there are substantial changes, (normally a new client).

I agree with what eek is saying about the client is incorrectly discharging their responsibility. It also adds another level of risk as it relies on the contractor to provide information, particularly around working practices, and we are well away many contractors have less than a clue about IR35 so high risk of generating an incorrect determination.

I think I'd be looking for a new gig if I was in the OP's position.