Reply to: IR35 'to be reviewed'

[ShandyDrinker]

I cant believe some people's head in the sand attitude towards IR35. Im currently working with 6 other contractors. Not one has their contract reviewed professionally.

IMO this is a real problem. Far too many contractors are prepared to work without paying any attention to contract reviews or IR35. Unfortunately it can mark out those of us who do ensure we pay attention to IR35, have contract reviews and ensure working practices don't put us at risk can be marked out as being difficult. I've very recently encountered this problem.

This and there is also the fact that it's becoming the defacto standard way of staffing projects so the whole face of contracting is changing. Those useless 10 a penny permies we were laughing at 7 years ago are now 'contractors'. The more demand, the more contractors, the bigger the target we are.

So true. Although my hope is that more contractors will go permie again given the recent announcements!

[BolshieBastard]

I'm naive AND ignorant now lol. I'd love to know what you think of all the contractor that really are those things

So really the situation is that you in a pretty rare case of a client that is directing your times so taking it all a bit to heart lol. If he is like that with working times for no reason then God help the rest of the gig. So you specific situation might be so screwed up times does become D&C but in a vast majority it isn't. People are thinking just because it says 9 to 5 on their contract they are under D&C and is an IR35 issue which simply is not true.

Normally I'd be interested to know why they are controlling your time. Through pig headedness or a genuine business reason but I don't really want to be called anything else so I'll leave this one.

Hey, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck............

Look, Im not some wet nose contractor. You seem to be ignorant on the matter of stated start \ finish times on a contract and in reality, within working practices. That does surprise me. I can only presume that, even in the face of all contract reviewer's and practices over the last 10 years (roughly) that you dont have defined start \ finish times, you are perfectly happy to have this and have the client enforce this.

Good for you.

I'll try and operate as a business though, thanks.

The agent \ client has introduced this because a number of on site contractors took the piss in what is only a 35 hour working week. They walked about 10 contractors offsite for jibbing their time.

I can understand the reason why this directive has been introduced. Im also fully aware that in itself, it may not be sufficient to bang to rights every on site contractor as IR35 caught. But, it is imo, a pointer towards it. Im waiting for a contract review update to confirm \ dispell my concerns.

Whether you contribute further is of no bother to me. Flounce all you want dear boy.

[northernladuk]

You see, this is where you let your ignorance get the better of you and you think you know more than the people at the sharp end.

Im not giving root and branch details of what the agency \ client has introduced where I am, I might as well identify the client and myself personally if I did.

But to say the 'times' issue is very rigid and sails very close to D&C (currently waiting for contract reviewer's thoughts) does cause me concern although not, it seems, my colleagues.

No client makes you stick to exact times? You dont know what you dont know.

I'm naive AND ignorant now lol. I'd love to know what you think of all the contractor that really are those things

So really the situation is that you in a pretty rare case of a client that is directing your times so taking it all a bit to heart lol. If he is like that with working times for no reason then God help the rest of the gig. So you specific situation might be so screwed up times does become D&C but in a vast majority it isn't. People are thinking just because it says 9 to 5 on their contract they are under D&C and is an IR35 issue which simply is not true.

Normally I'd be interested to know why they are controlling your time. Through pig headedness or a genuine business reason but I don't really want to be called anything else so I'll leave this one.

[Zero Liability]

Yep, the bad news is : the Tories won the general election.

But you knew that, didn't you ?

Boo

Remember this? Scroll down towards the end of the article. I don't think things would've been much different had the Tories not won and Labour had. Maybe if neither had come out with a clear majority, things could have been different.

[BolshieBastard]

Now who on earth has a contract that says 'could only be' for a start. Even if it does say 9 to 5 no one is rigid with their time. You go in half and hour earlier and go home half an hour later. No D&C there. Working practices trump the contract and I am pretty sure no client makes you stick to exact times.

Showing professional courtesy and adhering to their normal practice isn't D&C.

You see, this is where you let your ignorance get the better of you and you think you know more than the people at the sharp end.

Im not giving root and branch details of what the agency \ client has introduced where I am, I might as well identify the client and myself personally if I did.

But to say the 'times' issue is very rigid and sails very close to D&C (currently waiting for contract reviewer's thoughts) does cause me concern although not, it seems, my colleagues.

No client makes you stick to exact times? You dont know what you dont know.

[Boo]

More bad news:

Yep, the bad news is : the Tories won the general election.

But you knew that, didn't you ?

Boo

[Contreras]

It's the paragraph that comes after that which is the one to pay attention to:

"The government has asked HMRC to start a dialogue with business on how to improve the effectiveness of existing IR35 legislation. The government wants to find a solution that protects the Exchequer and improves fairness in the system."

Whatever is coming, it's not going to be good for us.

"Engage your contractors via FLC or be liable for employers NI if they are IR35 caught."

[northernladuk]

Although I don't believe contracting will die in the literal sense, it's already on its deathbed and will lie there croaking for another ten years before it becomes regulated and legislated into extinction.

A bit like EBay, I'm glad I was there in the good old days, but think I've pretty much done with it now. Travelling expenses, given where I live, are an issue and with everything now becoming more and more bobified and rates being generally ground down, I think it has had its day. Anything done to IR35 (or any other associated anti one man band legislation) will finish it for all but a few.

This and there is also the fact that it's becoming the defacto standard way of staffing projects so the whole face of contracting is changing. Those useless 10 a penny permies we were laughing at 7 years ago are now 'contractors'. The more demand, the more contractors, the bigger the target we are.

[MicrosoftBob]

Not even osbourne or gauke are that stupid as to raise a new tax that makes their beefing up of IR35 worthless. This will be a double whammy.

Yeah they'll probably deem your dividend tax to be salary for IR35 or some such spiteful rubbish

[TestMangler]

Although I don't believe contracting will die in the literal sense, it's already on its deathbed and will lie there croaking for another ten years before it becomes regulated and legislated into extinction.

A bit like EBay, I'm glad I was there in the good old days, but think I've pretty much done with it now. Travelling expenses, given where I live, are an issue and with everything now becoming more and more bobified and rates being generally ground down, I think it has had its day. Anything done to IR35 (or any other associated anti one man band legislation) will finish it for all but a few.

[tractor]

.....

Wow! Spectacularly naive.



This. Expect a bigger clampdown via IR35.

I cant believe some people's head in the sand attitude towards IR35. Im currently working with 6 other contractors. Not one has their contract reviewed professionally. One thought they had 'opted out' of IR35 by signing a statement provided by the agency. The rest dont have a problem with being told they must start and finish on the times directed by the client and none of them think IR35 is a concern.

Ho hum.

You should believe it. There are people who purport to be seasoned contractors here who think they have opted out of the AWR ffs.

[northernladuk]

So a contract that said your start and finish time could only be xxxam and finish xxpm wouldnt be a red flag to you or a contract reviewer? Do you still accept contracts that have a documented start \ finish time?

You dont see that as strong D&C? Seriously?

Now who on earth has a contract that says 'could only be' for a start. Even if it does say 9 to 5 no one is rigid with their time. You go in half and hour earlier and go home half an hour later. No D&C there. Working practices trump the contract and I am pretty sure no client makes you stick to exact times.

Showing professional courtesy and adhering to their normal practice isn't D&C.

[BolshieBastard]

Naive because I'm not getting upset by something until I see some details? You can do better than that BB.

Who's getting upset? Im a pragmatist. I remember some longer time contractors than me saying IR35 wasnt anything to worry about when mentioned in the 2000(?) budget. The last couple of governments have beefed up their attack via IR35 albeit by giving HMRC more resources to tackle it or having this talking shop forum trying to present IR35 as reasonable.

This is only going one way and its not towards easement.

And hopefully whatever comes along will target these guys first but I sadly doubt it.

Me too.

Because it isn't really?

So a contract that said your start and finish time could only be xxxam and finish xxpm wouldnt be a red flag to you or a contract reviewer? Do you still accept contracts that have a documented start \ finish time?

You dont see that as strong D&C? Seriously?

[Zero Liability]

Not even osbourne or gauke are that stupid as to raise a new tax that makes their beefing up of IR35 worthless. This will be a double whammy.

Sunk costs. It's horribly cost inefficient and direct yields scale very poorly with increased enforcement. Why wouldn't they just take the easier route of using the new dividend tax, which circumvents the need for IR35 altogether? Yes they can do whatever they like, but this new tax will accomplish that objective with far greater ease, and will also worsen the cost-efficiency of IR35 further. Little point in worrying about it before the details emerge, as NLUK said.

[northernladuk]

Wow! Spectacularly naive.

Naive because I'm not getting upset by something until I see some details? You can do better than that BB.

I cant believe some people's head in the sand attitude towards IR35. Im currently working with 6 other contractors. Not one has their contract reviewed professionally. One thought they had 'opted out' of IR35 by signing a statement provided by the agency.

And hopefully whatever comes along will target these guys first but I sadly doubt it.

The rest dont have a problem with being told they must start and finish on the times directed by the client and none of them think IR35 is a concern.

Because it isn't really?