IR35 Inside/Outside same supplier and ways of working? What to do?

[jamesbrown]

I'm looking for advice on how to make things right for myself using the correct and legal procedures and using the legalities in place to allow that challenge of an incorrect decision. If no one was to ever challenge these things what's the point in there being a legal requirement to ensure determinations are correct in the first place?

A legal requirement for a client-led status disagreement process is very far from independent arbitration. Again, there are no clear legal avenues for you to pursue because the client is in control of the process.

[dave748]

There you have it, value talks. You're not considered sufficiently valuable for them to take the risk, and it's a risk (to them), ultimately.

There's no way you'll get an outside determination and you have no (or very unclear) legal recourse (the client-led status disagreement process has only one possible outcome), so you can either accept it or leave, and no one here can make that call for you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, the value of a persons contribution should have no bearing on a determination outcome. It is to do with the manner in which you work, not the value you add. The reason why the determinations were different is that different people within the same organisation came to a different determination for what is essentially on paper the same role.

[dave748]

A legal requirement for a client-led status disagreement process is very far from independent arbitration. Again, there are no clear legal avenues for you to pursue because the client is in control of the process.

I'm sorry but I'm struggling to see how that is the case if someone is paying a lot more TAX than they should because the determination is incorrect. It's the legal equivalent of been overcharged TAX for a service that you shouldn't have to pay. If there is no legal recourse then why have many, many contractors gone to court, and won, against incorrect determinations?

[jamesbrown]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, the value of a persons contribution should have no bearing on a determination outcome. It is to do with the manner in which you work, not the value you add. The reason why the determinations were different is that different people within the same organisation came to a different determination for what is essentially on paper the same role.

That is correct, in principle, but not in practice. The client can evaluate the risk/reward and make a decision as to whether they're willing to defend their assessment. The only thing the client needs to consider is whether they can build a plausible story and whether they're willing to face the consequences of being wrong. Also, "on paper" doesn't really matter, working practices do. But if you're saying that they're identical (and you can see them), then both are probably inside or both are probably outside. Either way, the client isn't willing to take that risk with you - they'd rather see you walk.

[eek]

I'm sorry but I'm struggling to see how that is the case if someone is paying a lot more TAX than they should because the determination is incorrect. It's the legal equivalent of been overcharged TAX for a service that you shouldn't have to pay. If there is no legal recourse then why have many, many contractors gone to court, and won, against incorrect determinations?

Who has gone to court under the new post April 2021 rules and won against an incorrect determination?

It's simply, not possible.

[jamesbrown]

I'm sorry but I'm struggling to see how that is the case if someone is paying a lot more TAX than they should because the determination is incorrect. It's the legal equivalent of been overcharged TAX for a service that you shouldn't have to pay. If there is no legal recourse then why have many, many contractors gone to court, and won, against incorrect determinations?

Er, pardon? The PS rules have been in place for a few years, but this was only extended to the private sector in April 2021. If you're talking about HMRC's appalling record at tax tribunal w/ IR35 cases, all of those were cases brought by HMRC . Again, the only clear thing you have is the client-led SDS. It's possible that some avenues will emerge in due course - I don't rule it out - but probably w/r to employment rights rather than tax.

[dave748]

That is correct, in principle, but not in practice. The client can evaluate the risk/reward and make a decision as to whether they're willing to defend their assessment. The only thing the client needs to consider is whether they can build a plausible story and whether they're willing to face the consequences of being wrong. Also, "on paper" doesn't really matter, working practices do. But if you're saying that they're identical (and you can see them), then both are probably inside or both are probably outside. Either way, the client isn't willing to take that risk with you - they'd rather see you walk.

Thanks James, I'm confident they are both OUTSIDE and will stand my ground, working practices are identical for both roles in every aspect. I don't think it's a case of "willing to let me walk" and the other not. It's a case of a complete lack of internal communication and collaboration between two people in the same organisation that has lead to two opposing determinations for what is essentially the same job.

[dave748]

Er, pardon? The PS rules have been in place for a few years, but this was only extended to the private sector in April 2021. If you're talking about HMRC's appalling record at tax tribunal w/ IR35 cases, all of those were cases brought by HMRC . Again, the only clear thing you have is the client-led SDS. It's possible that some avenues will emerge in due course - I don't rule it out - but probably w/r to employment rights rather than tax.

No, it has actually worked in both directions where a contractor has taken their client to court and won due to an incorrect determination. I agree for the most part it is the other way around with HMRC, but not in every case.

[eek]

Thanks James, I'm confident they are both OUTSIDE and will stand my ground, working practices are identical for both roles in every aspect. I don't think it's a case of "willing to let me walk" and the other not. It's a case of a complete lack of internal communication and collaboration between two people in the same organisation that has lead to two opposing determinations for what is essentially the same job.

The thing is that the client is in a no win situation here?

If you don't like it walk as under the post April rules there is nothing you can fix here.

[jamesbrown]

No, it has actually worked in both directions where a contractor has taken their client to court and won due to an incorrect determination. I agree for the most part it is the other way around with HMRC, but not in every case.

I think I would’ve heard about it . Links please. Again, these rules have been in place for 4 months and there’s no court to hear it, unless it’s a contractual dispute. I guess you could ask HMRC to open an IR35 case, but I doubt they have very much incentive when the client thinks you’re inside