PS - Student Loans Company

[malvolio]

not if it's not in the contract you won't

And how likely is that? 90% of my contracts have contained clauses about indemnifying mis-paid taxes and other liabilities. There's no way that isn't there throughout the whole contractual chain back to the client. At the end of the day, it is your tax that is in dispute, not the clients'' or the agencies'.

[northernladuk]

So the agency makes a determination they probably can't make and that causes a penalty to be paid my the contractor ? I thought they paid the penalty and that was why they were putting everyone inside ...

It isn't a penalty. It's a re-adjustment of the tax situation based on the new information.

[pr1]

Well yes - but you (or rather YourCo) will have been paid gross so will have to give quite a bit of it back, probably back to the start of the contract.

not if it's not in the contract you won't

[radish2008]

Well yes - but you (or rather YourCo) will have been paid gross so will have to give quite a bit of it back, probably back to the start of the contract.

So the agency makes a determination they probably can't make and that causes a penalty to be paid my the contractor ? I thought they paid the penalty and that was why they were putting everyone inside ...

[malvolio]

Why is it too risky though ? I thought the onus and the penalties were on THEM, not you. If they get it wrong don't they pay up ?

Well yes - but you (or rather YourCo) will have been paid gross so will have to give quite a bit of it back, probably back to the start of the contract.

[radish2008]

I'm suspecting they decided inside IR35 as posts above, no one is showing a blind but of interest in the role without asking for 200 quid a day more, and on the grounds that money is the motivation, they suddenly decide it's outside.

Too risky...

Why is it too risky though ? I thought the onus and the penalties were on THEM, not you. If they get it wrong don't they pay up ?

[stek]

The legislation is clear in the definition of whether the body is outside or not - if they are not subject to FoI then they are outside.

If a body isn't subject to FoI, then there is nothing to prevent them from operating following the rules (even though they don't apply).

The question to ask if "are you saying that the rules do not apply to SLC, or are you saying that the rules apply but the role is outside IR35?" because the answers are different.

I'm suspecting they decided inside IR35 as posts above, no one is showing a blind but of interest in the role without asking for 200 quid a day more, and on the grounds that money is the motivation, they suddenly decide it's outside.

Too risky...

[RonBW]

Could some kind soul just give me a quite yes/no as to whether a PS body can just decide arbitrarily that they are outside?

The legislation is clear in the definition of whether the body is outside or not - if they are not subject to FoI then they are outside.

If a body isn't subject to FoI, then there is nothing to prevent them from operating following the rules (even though they don't apply).

The question to ask if "are you saying that the rules do not apply to SLC, or are you saying that the rules apply but the role is outside IR35?" because the answers are different.

[radish2008]

I think they can but they need to take 'reasonable care' as detailed here:

Public bodies forced to take 'reasonable care' over contractors' IR35 status :: Contractor UK

[stek]

Yeah!! Do a search you chump!!

I can't be arsed! I want someone else to do it for me!

[northernladuk]

There are plenty of forums that have been discussing the public sector roles, and responses that the public sector bodies have said in regards to IR35.

Yeah!! Do a search you chump!!

[malvolio]

SLC are the ones who kicked all this PS nonsense off, with their dodgy appointment of a senior manager in an attempt to get around the CS pay scales. I was also on a team that spent tens of thousands on a detailed proposal to replace their unfit for purpose IT estate that they decided they didn't actually want and couldn't afford anyway.

I wouldn't trust them to run a whelk stall myself.

[Neil@Intouch]

There are plenty of forums that have been discussing the public sector roles, and responses that the public sector bodies have said in regards to IR35. Most of them are going to be using the ESS tool created by HMRC, or from an independent professional i.e. QDOS, which seems to be the one banded around a lot at the moment by our clients.

It is the responsibility of the end client (public sector body) to determine the status of whether you are outside or inside of IR35. I would clarify this with them before accepting the contract. Even if they are saying that your contract would be inside IR35, you would be able to negotiate a day rate that could recuperate the loss made.

Your Accountant should know about these changes and have a feel for the general responses from other clients, what the public sector bodies are doing as these changes are just around the corner now.

[stek]

They contacted me a while back with a fairly low rate but doable, then said is PS so I binned any interest.

Now the agent has come back saying SLC have said they are outside IR35 am I interested.

I must admit I've not kept up with all this recently since I intend to remain outside of UK and potter about the EU and spent much of my time reading tax law in member states.

Could some kind soul just give me a quite yes/no as to whether a PS body can just decide arbitrarily that they are outside? Presumably so long as they take the risk, i.e. it's in the contract the contractor is covered? Or is it all still too up in the air?

Accountant won't know, plus I'm 'dormant' in UK, all I really want to know is if there is any risk, if so, I'll cross it off (plus don't really fancy it anyway!).