HMRC deliberately omitted MOO from ESS/CEST
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    28,381
    Thanks (Given)
    1482
    Thanks (Received)
    1209
    Likes (Given)
    4656
    Likes (Received)
    4358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    No. Distinguish between locums that take on longer contracts compared to those who are used to fill in gaps in resources on an as-needed basis. The former may be depending on their contracts and Ts&Cs, the latter probably aren't. The "disguised employee" argument remains unchanged.

    Even for the former group, they could also argue that they are employed by an NHS trust for each contract and that trust does not have to renew the contract on completion, which blows HMRC's argument that they are employees of the NHS as a whole.

    If it were black and white, we wouldn't be arguing about IR35 after 20 years...
    NLUK is arguing about what level the locum is. If the locum is a consultant then clearly would be easier to argue they are out of IR35 but lower levels are considered to be needing supervision.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  2. #12

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    234
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default HMRC deliberately omitted MOO from ESS/CEST

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    Precisely. That has been the case right back to the original RMC case in the 70s.
    So in the case of an IT Contractor, gathering evidence for at least one, but ideally as many of the following points as possible for each contract, alongside carrying IPSE Plus membership and arguably IR35 insurance *should* place them in a reasonably comfortable position in case of investigation? Not withstanding any HMRC dirty tricks.

    1.
    - the client would accept a suitable substitute

    2.
    - the client would send them home in the absence of work
    AND
    - the client is not under obligation to extend a contract
    AND
    - the contractor is not under obligation to accept an extension

    3.
    - the contractor and the client discuss and agree ways of working (rather than the contractor takes instruction from the client)
    AND
    - the contractor is not obliged to accept changes to the initially agreed deliverables, and any agreed changes are documented appropriately

  3. #13

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    364
    Thanks (Given)
    114
    Thanks (Received)
    12
    Likes (Given)
    598
    Likes (Received)
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    So in the case of an IT Contractor, gathering evidence for at least one, but ideally as many of the following points as possible for each contract, alongside carrying IPSE Plus membership and arguably IR35 insurance *should* place them in a reasonably comfortable position in case of investigation? Not withstanding any HMRC dirty tricks.

    1.
    - the client would accept a suitable substitute

    2.
    - the client would send them home in the absence of work
    AND
    - the client is not under obligation to extend a contract
    AND
    - the contractor is not under obligation to accept an extension

    3.
    - the contractor and the client discuss and agree ways of working (rather than the contractor takes instruction from the client)
    AND
    - the contractor is not obliged to accept changes to the initially agreed deliverables, and any agreed changes are documented appropriately
    Amen. Until they move the goalposts again.

  4. #14

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    234
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    So if it really does boil down to that, wouldn’t any client gladly confirm at least number 2 (and why wouldn’t they?), at which point I ask my self why we are all so worried?

    Come on Malvolio and NLUK, tell me why this is too simple

  5. #15

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    234
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Well, looks like I just solved IR35 then

  6. #16
    eek
    eek is offline

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    22,718
    Thanks (Given)
    271
    Thanks (Received)
    1296
    Likes (Given)
    1084
    Likes (Received)
    3761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    Well, looks like I just solved IR35 then
    Nope because 2 is no different from a zero hour contract which would be under PAYE....
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  7. #17

    Godlike

    ChimpMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Here There and Everywhere
    Posts
    5,151
    Thanks (Given)
    91
    Thanks (Received)
    89
    Likes (Given)
    720
    Likes (Received)
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    So in the case of an IT Contractor, gathering evidence for at least one, but ideally as many of the following points as possible for each contract, alongside carrying IPSE Plus membership and arguably IR35 insurance *should* place them in a reasonably comfortable position in case of investigation? Not withstanding any HMRC dirty tricks.

    1.
    - the client would accept a suitable substitute

    2.
    - the client would send them home in the absence of work
    AND
    - the client is not under obligation to extend a contract
    AND
    - the contractor is not under obligation to accept an extension

    3.
    - the contractor and the client discuss and agree ways of working (rather than the contractor takes instruction from the client)
    AND
    - the contractor is not obliged to accept changes to the initially agreed deliverables, and any agreed changes are documented appropriately

    It's not that simple when using CEST. I played around with CEST the other day for fun, hence my post http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...test-ir35.html

    The CEST tool is weighted towards a HMRC victory on pretty much every question. Even for the 3 areas you list above, if you look at CEST the questions do not give the consultant much chance of getting through unscathed. I won't repeat what I said in my post as there's too much info but to summarise: CEST will screw you unless you can answer very specifically, or you can force the client to take on a substitute without even approving that person.

  8. #18

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    234
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Agreed. To be fair I’m talking about private sector IR35 defence, and this is in the public sector area of the forum, so I probably should have been clearer.

  9. #19

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,453
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    241
    Likes (Given)
    8
    Likes (Received)
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    Agreed. To be fair I’m talking about private sector IR35 defence, and this is in the public sector area of the forum, so I probably should have been clearer.
    Nevertheless (and this answers your earlier question btw) the debate is not about what HMRC believe to be the situation, it's about what the laws says the situation is. If you appeal an initial decision of inside to firstly the FTT and then again at the higher level, the decision will be based on real case law and the real circumstances of the engagement. What the CEST or anything else says about it is utterly irrelevant.

    The law surrounding IR35 has not changed at all and the usual remedies still apply. The CEST is merely one way to make an initial assessment, it cannot be definitive. The only good thing is that if you are found inside on a gig advertised as outside you won't be picking up the bill - unless you've signed something really silly in your contract about who is the fee payer.
    Blog? What blog...?

  10. #20

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    234
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Nope because 2 is no different from a zero hour contract which would be under PAYE....
    So in your view, how would one demonstrate lack of MOO?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.