IR35 not clear yet

[barely_pointless]

https://www.freelanceinformer.com/ne...legal-experts/

Well, the legal experts (i.e. those who make money in disagreements) would day that, but further down the article is a quote:

“HMRC can do this because the MSC regime focuses on whether the contractor has been helped with the setting up and running of their PSC company rather than whether they pass or fail employment status tests like the IR35 tests.”

which would certainly have been almost all of us prior, so it may go some way to trap the churn back from brollies to PSC's ?

Thoughts ?

[northernladuk]

To be fair there is nothing new in there. Any contractor that's half a clue about what they do will have come to the same conclusions.

For example, every time there is a seismic announcement on a major change the uninformed lose their tulip and get all giddy about the changes without realising what it really means and what the actual implementation looks like. The reality of the change is rarely as smooth as it sounds in the early announcement so we've been here many times before. It always comes with caveats or processes when it hits so it's not as bright and shiney as it sounded.
They also forget that whatever comes in won't be good enough and it will be reversed/changed in around two years or next government change. You'd have to be braindead not to expect it. It's just the cycle of IR35. Shouldn't need an article to tell you that.

Another area that anyone with a hole in their bum should have worked out, but sadly many can't, is the switch in April

Osborne Clarke’s Insights piece has stated that the obvious target of CFA enforcement will be any roles that the end client has determined (pre-April) to be inside IR35, or blanket-banned PSCs from filling, but which the end client and staffing company or supplier consultancy allow to be performed by a PSC on a self-employed basis after April.

The above example, according to ti the legal experts, could be deemed to be “turning a blind eye to tax evasion” by the contractor since the contractor and staffing company knew full well that the contractor was inside IR35 and the end user knew full well that by using a PSC model the contractor was treating him/herself as outside IR35.

It's interesting they've target the client in this example. I must admit I don't think it's the clients issue. They were on the hook for the determination, now it's moved back to the contractor they are on the hook again. Seems a bit unfair but the sensible thing would be for the client to carry on enforcing the determination even though it's not required. Many contractors will not like this.

Also the individual contractors themselves. This idea that some chump is inside on the Friday and thinks they can be outside on the Monday. I can see myself getting a ban at some point if we start getting this question a lot. Anyone that thinks this is acceptable needs to be determined as inside for the rest of their life. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what they do and are just playing tickbox box IR35 which, IMO, should put that contractor inside by default. Yes there are some situations where it might be possible but that situation will have to be spotted and resolved by knowing IR35, not expecting it by default just because of the legislation. To be fair got to give some credit to the current legislation, it's pushed the clueless and careless inside as they should be.

It's an interesting article as it touches many points but there is nothing in there that isn't already covered by the sticky or hasn't been discussed in detail on here.