• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Letter - Cabinet Office requirements to confirm the tax arrangements of temp contract"

Collapse

  • Zero Liability
    replied
    They're in the business of making things up, like the judges who catch up with the rest of the world every 20 - 30 years in batches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Archangel
    replied
    I'm a "real" business, no really, my customers are members of the public, I have premises and employees etc

    Last year's spend on advertising was approx £500 (most business is repeat or word of mouth/high street walk ins) so wtf do they get this arbitrary £1200 from?

    Leave a comment:


  • kingcook
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    Yes, but it only costs me about £360 a year in hosting fees. Not the arbitrary £1200 HMRC have come up with.
    How much did your limited company pay you to develop the site?

    EDIT: Someone beat me to it...

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Surely only a business can be investigated for IR35 so that should be a key differentiator between a contractor and a permie. Just being targeted for an IR35 investigation proves you are a business and you are in the clear? Sorted
    I had thought the same thing initially, but I was afraid in case mentioning it caused some kind of glitch in the space-time continuum and would destroy the universe. Apparently my fears were unfounded.

    Leave a comment:


  • 5000
    replied
    Thanks for all the comments. Will engage PCG & the accountant and see what they say

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by Qdos Consulting View Post
    They don't use the test in selecting targets.

    However, if you are subject to an enquiry and you can prove that you are 'low risk' they will close the case down and will not bother you for three years. See page 10 of this.
    Surely only a business can be investigated for IR35 so that should be a key differentiator between a contractor and a permie. Just being targeted for an IR35 investigation proves you are a business and you are in the clear? Sorted

    Leave a comment:


  • Qdos Contractor
    replied
    They don't use the test in selecting targets.

    However, if you are subject to an enquiry and you can prove that you are 'low risk' they will close the case down and will not bother you for three years. See page 10 of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpontaneousOrder
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    They can't and they don't. It isn't a targeting tool, it's supposed to provide some measure of clarity for business owners (i.e. a self-assessment) based on how HMRC would like to see IR35 applied, and not the reality of IR35 case law, which applies to contracts in the first instance and not businesses.
    Right. My last Qdos review stated that HMRC do not use the test - it's for business owners guidance only.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickNick
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    Hah, almost identical to me then.

    * Client risk test - all of my clients have been good payers so no points for me.

    Score: 11 - medium risk.

    There's your problem. One client went bust on me and Bingo, extra 10 points. However this was more than a year ago and of course since then my due diligence has been ratched up a notch and it's not happened since. Boom, 10 points less than I was earlier.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCyclingProgrammer
    replied
    Originally posted by GazCol View Post
    I can't find a link but I'm pretty sure I read an article on here from QDOS stating it begins with a PAYE/VAT investigation and the BETs come in to play then - from your answers and supporting evidence a decision is made on whether or not to investigate your IR35 status.
    OK, that makes sense I suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    True, if I thought of it that way I'd certainly exceed the £1200 box.

    One thing I've never understood is that if the BETs are supposed to indicator of your risk of investigation, how does that work exactly? We can take the BETs ourselves but how do HMRC know the answers to the questions? How can they use it as a way of targeting investigations? It seems like a lot of the questions would require an investigation in the first place in order for HMRC to get the answers.
    They can't and they don't. It isn't a targeting tool, it's supposed to provide some measure of clarity for business owners (i.e. a self-assessment) based on how HMRC would like to see IR35 applied, and not the reality of IR35 case law, which applies to contracts in the first instance and not businesses.

    Leave a comment:


  • GazCol
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    True, if I thought of it that way I'd certainly exceed the £1200 box.

    One thing I've never understood is that if the BETs are supposed to indicator of your risk of investigation, how does that work exactly? We can take the BETs ourselves but how do HMRC know the answers to the questions? How can they use it as a way of targeting investigations? It seems like a lot of the questions would require an investigation in the first place in order for HMRC to get the answers.
    I can't find a link but I'm pretty sure I read an article on here from QDOS stating it begins with a PAYE/VAT investigation and the BETs come in to play then - from your answers and supporting evidence a decision is made on whether or not to investigate your IR35 status.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCyclingProgrammer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jessica@WhiteFieldTax View Post
    How long do you spend developing, maintaining and updating said web site, and whats your internal charge rate? Probably not hard to tick the £1,200 box when you look at it that way.

    I agree though, the BET rules are almost meaningless.
    True, if I thought of it that way I'd certainly exceed the £1200 box.

    One thing I've never understood is that if the BETs are supposed to indicator of your risk of investigation, how does that work exactly? We can take the BETs ourselves but how do HMRC know the answers to the questions? How can they use it as a way of targeting investigations? It seems like a lot of the questions would require an investigation in the first place in order for HMRC to get the answers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jessica@WhiteFieldTax
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View Post
    Yes, but it only costs me about £360 a year in hosting fees. Not the arbitrary £1200 HMRC have come up with.
    How long do you spend developing, maintaining and updating said web site, and whats your internal charge rate? Probably not hard to tick the £1,200 box when you look at it that way.

    I agree though, the BET rules are almost meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    I would get an IR35 friendly contract reviewed by Qdos, take the work, and allow my insurers / the PCG to fight out any investigation if it ever happened.

    Or look to work in the public sector via a third party consultancy, which I've done before via Steria, Fujitsu and others - there's no restriction on rates or this kind of rubbish that way.
    Where I agree this would probably end up in favour of the contractor it's not somewhere I would want to go just for a single gig that probably isn't going to pay that well either. I would be with Cojak on this one and avoid if possible first and only take the risk of a huge fight if there are no other options. You would win and should be little risk due to the insurances but not something I would be wanting to invite willingly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X