Using a Limited Company for contracting

[NotAllThere]

But the liability for IR35 shifting to the client has been publicised for the last few years. IR35 itself is of course over 20 years old.

[eek]

But the liability for IR35 shifting to the client has been publicised for the last few years. IR35 itself is of course over 20 years old.

Technically, responsibility for the final decision is what is shifting

Liability is way more complex to explain.

[NotAllThere]

Technically, responsibility for the final decision is what is shifting

Liability is way more complex to explain.

Technically I guess, both responsibility and liability shift - but only because the liability does. If the determination is wrong, previously the contractor paid. Now the client pays.

[eek]

Technically I guess, both responsibility and liability shift - but only because the liability does. If the determination is wrong, previously the contractor paid. Now the client pays.

Again wrong - it depends where the screw up occurs.

So no decision or no reasonable care from the end client and its the end client

if the end client generates an SDS and an agency doesn't work with it then it's the agency's responsibility.

[malvolio]

Again wrong - it depends where the screw up occurs.

The key point is that it doesn't automatically fall on the client. That de-risks a lot of the "let's ban PSC" brigade and hampers a lot of scheme providers more than they realise.

It is a technical change, agreed, but an important one.

[NotAllThere]

Again wrong - it depends where the screw up occurs.

So no decision or no reasonable care from the end client and its the end client

if the end client generates an SDS and an agency doesn't work with it then it's the agency's responsibility.

The point I was making is that the resposibility and liability for the decision moved away from contractors, and also pointing out to the OP that it's been in the works and known about for a few year.

In terms of the interest of people on this forum and in terms of the OP's interests, liability further up the chain is largely irrelevant. Except possibly the end client might not insist. It really makes no difference - someone upstream mayt take the risk - it really doesn't matter to who which that is.

[eek]

The point I was making is that the resposibility and liability for the decision moved away from contractors, and also pointing out to the OP that it's been in the works and known about for a few year.

In terms of the interest of people on this forum and in terms of the OP's interests, liability further up the chain is largely irrelevant. Except possibly the end client might not insist. It really makes no difference - someone upstream mayt take the risk - it really doesn't matter to who which that is.

Oh it does because as both me and James discovered today - this is a perfectly valid SDS delivery model

6th April - start work - yep we think you are outside
May payment from agency (factored invoice April's work)
June payment from agency (factored invoice May's work)
July SDS issued (determining that the contract is inside IR35) just prior to first payment by end client

And the sad bit is that I'm not making this up - while an SDS does need to be provided the deadline for it being provided is no longer the start of the project as it was from 2017 but prior to payment of the first invoice by the end client.

[NotAllThere]

The point I was addressing with the OP was not who was liable at the end, but simply that the law has changed so that the end contractor is no longer liable. And that has been known for a few years, so NLUK's comment was not offensive. OP should have known far longer than a few weeks ago.


Your comments were irrelevant to that, although the consequences of the outcome are fascinating and of concern to anyone who thinks they're outside.

I think you've been hanging around lawyers for too long.

[eek]

The point I was addressing with the OP was not who was liable at the end, but simply that the law has changed so that the end contractor is no longer liable. And that has been known for a few years, so NLUK's comment was not offensive. OP should have known far longer than a few weeks ago.


Your comments were irrelevant to that, although the consequences of the outcome are fascinating and of concern to anyone who thinks they're outside.

I think you've been hanging around lawyers for too long.

I avoid lawyers like the plague - my issue here is that I really do need to know exactly what HMRC want the law to be as the first argument against my plan for world domination is that isn't what the law says (it is) followed by it will never work ( to which the response is HMRC doesn't care).

But it's a Friday so I'll wander next door and see is Rishi wants a quick coffee and a chat. You may think I'm joking but the new Treasury office is next door to my new office.

[quackhandle]

But it's a Friday so I'll wander next door and see is Rishi wants a quick coffee and a chat. You may think I'm joking but the new Treasury office is next door to my new office.

Ooh, that would be far too tempting for me, I'd be trying to "have a word" with Rishi.

qh