- 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!
Reply to: Direction and control
Collapse
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "Direction and control"
Collapse
-
Agree with Contreras that it depends how a particular reviewer weighs D&C among other factors. As things stand, either an unfettered RoS or a demonstrable lack of MoO would be sufficient to win, but a "fail" is just an indication of risk and depends where the reviewer draws the line. Doing the same job as a permie implies that D&C probably exists in practice. This isn't anything new; if you have your working practices reviewed, it's going to look at why you've been contracted (i.e. as a temp resource delivering something routine for the client or as a specialist/non-routine resource), because that tells you something about the likelihood of D&C in practice.
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostHahaha. Like you 'actually delivering stuff' doesnt make you a bum on a seat contractor who should 'pay their taxes.'
Clearly called fool for no reason.
Of course many are worried that next year the argument might not stand.
Leave a comment:
-
Similar situation happened to me, this was in 2012. Contracted to deliver a self-contained project (i.e. sole software developer) but within a department where the client already had permies who could in theory have done the work. I got a contract review and made it very clear that I was working alone on a specific defined project. The review came back as potentially inside IR35 due to me effectively being hired as a temporary resource to supplement similar roles staffed by permies working on other projects.
Mitigation for this would have been a confirmation of working arrangements signed by the department boss, but that was never going to happen, and ultimately the review judged the contract inside IR35.
There was a similar case posted here recently (and the OP has since found that thread) which unfortunately came across as a rant against the particular review service. It must be remembered that an IR35 review is just an opinion and opinions vary. It's a risky move to dismiss one particular outfit because they hold a point in principle that doesn't sit well with many of us.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TykeMerc View PostI'm a bit surprised by this as a PM myself it's pretty much how most of my contracts pan out with there being a PMO or some other Programme/Portfolio organisation in place and I routinely have the contracts reviewed, this has never been flagged as a concern. Being the ONLY PM at an organisation of any size is exceptionally unlikely.
I don't know who's done the review, but the implication is that it's about impossible for anyone in any role (dev, PM, support, engineering, architecture) to be outside Direction and Control therefore inside IR35.
They're either insanely risk averse or there's a bit more to the review than what you wrote. It's not impossible that you've misunderstood the review.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by nomoregantcharts View PostHi,
I've had an offer of a contract as a project manager direct with a client. I've had the contract and working practices reviewed and the opinion was that it was a fail as a) the client has other PM's doing a similar role and b) I would be working on similar projects so very hard to show that I wouldn't be subject to D&C.
In my experience it is rare that an IT contractor is genuinely providing a skill that the client doesn't have. More common with the IT contractors that I know is that they are providing additional capacity of skills which the client already has. Therefore this would point to them being inside IR35.
I would be really interested to know how people who other people interpret this. Particualry interested in people who are in the scenario above where they are working with a client who also have permanent people with similar skills and or roles.
I don't know who's done the review, but the implication is that it's about impossible for anyone in any role (dev, PM, support, engineering, architecture) to be outside Direction and Control therefore inside IR35.
They're either insanely risk averse or there's a bit more to the review than what you wrote. It's not impossible that you've misunderstood the review.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by fool View PostWe aren't all uniform automatons. You likely have something these permies dont, otherwise you're a bums on seat contractor and should pay your tax.
I do ops and development. Almost everywhere I've worked has had other developers or ops guys who are permie. What makes me different from the permies I work with is I actually deliver stuff. I don't need 6 months to get up to speed and I don't spend my time convincing managment I need to use their dime to learn to use a different technology.
So basically, before I even start talking about niche technologies, the difference between me and the permies I tend to work with, is I don't need a babysitter. The clients know that. That's why they hire me. That's my defining feature. That's what every single tuliping client asks of me doing the interview. Then they give me the project, leave me alone and I deliver it.
Clearly called fool for no reason.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by nomoregantcharts View PostHi,
I've had an offer of a contract as a project manager direct with a client. I've had the contract and working practices reviewed and the opinion was that it was a fail as a) the client has other PM's doing a similar role and b) I would be working on similar projects so very hard to show that I wouldn't be subject to D&C.
In my experience it is rare that an IT contractor is genuinely providing a skill that the client doesn't have. More common with the IT contractors that I know is that they are providing additional capacity of skills which the client already has. Therefore this would point to them being inside IR35.
I would be really interested to know how people who other people interpret this. Particualry interested in people who are in the scenario above where they are working with a client who also have permanent people with similar skills and or roles.
I do ops and development. Almost everywhere I've worked has had other developers or ops guys who are permie. What makes me different from the permies I work with is I actually deliver stuff. I don't need 6 months to get up to speed and I don't spend my time convincing managment I need to use their dime to learn to use a different technology.
So basically, before I even start talking about niche technologies, the difference between me and the permies I tend to work with, is I don't need a babysitter. The clients know that. That's why they hire me. That's my defining feature. That's what every single tuliping client asks of me doing the interview. Then they give me the project, leave me alone and I deliver it.Last edited by fool; 18 October 2015, 10:34.
Leave a comment:
-
Direction and control
Hi,
I've had an offer of a contract as a project manager direct with a client. I've had the contract and working practices reviewed and the opinion was that it was a fail as a) the client has other PM's doing a similar role and b) I would be working on similar projects so very hard to show that I wouldn't be subject to D&C.
In my experience it is rare that an IT contractor is genuinely providing a skill that the client doesn't have. More common with the IT contractors that I know is that they are providing additional capacity of skills which the client already has. Therefore this would point to them being inside IR35.
I would be really interested to know how people who other people interpret this. Particualry interested in people who are in the scenario above where they are working with a client who also have permanent people with similar skills and or roles.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: