Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer
View Post
- 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: Right to substitution vs. Bum-on-seat
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 "Right to substitution vs. Bum-on-seat"
Collapse
-
We had this very conversation in the pub last night - if I go out of my way to hire the best builder to work on my house, I'm not going to be happy if his wifes brother rolls up. Even in the 'real' consulting world (I.e., firms with multiple staff) there's a lot of politics about switching people out randomly. I had a customer kick and scream when it was rumored I was going to be taken off the account - formal complaint made and everything, so I ended up staying with them. Does that mean the multi million pound firm was under IR35...
But, 1) We're preaching to the choir 2) HMRC/Politicians don't give a tulip - they don't care about defining us in reality because that's not the end game
I can hand on heart say that I operate in exactly the same way as a one man consultancy as I did as a member of a larger consultancy. My expenses are similar (Except lunch, I do take that one as a contracting perk), the way I operate with customers is similar and the way I live is similar. Except because there's no one else creaming profit for my work I'm now in the cross-hairs.*
*Sort of, because I genuinely believe I'm outside and always have been - but that's besides the point because HMRC would cream themselves at the chance to get us all inside.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View PostI agree - but the weighting towards RoS in the new PS IR35 tool (say your client will accept a sub that you pay and it's an immediate "outside" result without even asking about MOO or D&C) says to me that HMRC think differently. And we may not agree but that rarely matters.
D&S is far more open to interpretation, there are different degrees of D&S and the whole thing is more subjective.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostI don't think IR35 will exist.
I don't think contracting will exist as it does now if there is much less advantage - I think the government has always wanted all contractors to move into perm positions. That's what it will drive towards and implement.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View PostI agree - but the weighting towards RoS in the new PS IR35 tool (say your client will accept a sub that you pay and it's an immediate "outside" result without even asking about MOO or D&C) says to me that HMRC think differently. And we may not agree but that rarely matters.
The confusion comes because various clients, when challenged, have said they wouldn't actually honour such clauses (including one in court, so ignoring the basics of contract law...) so some have seen that to diminish its importance. If it's the client saying it, then it must be true.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostI've always viewed MOO and D&C as far more important factors when it comes to IR35 and being perceived as a proper business.
Leave a comment:
-
I agree. Whilst I do have an unfettered RoS clause in my contracts and if I really needed to use it, I would, I'm well aware that having to use it would probably not make my clients happy. I'm far more likely to sub-contract work than outright substitute myself. As you say, I'm not a bum on seat, I offer specific expertise to my clients and they have engaged MyCo because they want *me*.
I've always viewed MOO and D&C as far more important factors when it comes to IR35 and being perceived as a proper business.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meanttobeworking View PostIt strikes me that as freelancers, we do a lot to avoid being classed as a bum-on-seat resource - instead bringing expertise and special skills not present (to one degree or another) at the end client.
What's the difference between BoS, interim, and single serial client contractor? Nothing as far as I can see - yet some people will look down their nose at some terms and think "well that doesn't apply to me" when it really does.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostNo, that's not the reason. This attack is being driven by a political agenda not IR35 enforcement.
9 years of insanely complicated legislation ?
Or a direct cash grab ?
It doesn't matter what motivates it the end result will be the same.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostOf course.
But it's very difficult to enforce and very few successful prosecutions.
What I'm saying is that it's not their main forma of attach any more. When I started contracting 9 years ago it was, PCG was rampant. Nowadays they are hitting contractors in their pockets, which is far more effective. Far fewer contractors will mean that IR35 is pointless.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostDo you really understand why IR35 exists in its current form and why it won't be repealed?
But it's very difficult to enforce and very few successful prosecutions.
What I'm saying is that it's not their main forma of attach any more. When I started contracting 9 years ago it was, PCG was rampant. Nowadays they are hitting contractors in their pockets, which is far more effective. Far fewer contractors will mean that IR35 is pointless.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostI don't think IR35 will exist.
I don't think contracting will exist as it does now if there is much less advantage - I think the government has always wanted all contractors to move into perm positions. That's what it will drive towards and implement.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostI don't think IR35 will exist.
I don't think contracting will exist as it does now if there is much less advantage - I think the government has always wanted all contractors to move into perm positions. That's what it will drive towards and implement.
What is worse is that there will be proportionately more sales drones to contracts and people asking for two references and other tedious garbage.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LondonManc View PostIs it wasted if contracting is left to the contractors rather than the bum-on-seaters?
The bum-on-seaters shouldn't be pushed into IR35 - the employers should be engaging them in FTCs, so that they stump up the employer NICs as HMRC want.
I don't think contracting will exist as it does now if there is much less advantage - I think the government has always wanted all contractors to move into perm positions. That's what it will drive towards and implement.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by radish2008 View PostTo be frank I fear all of these conversations are likely to be irrelevant in a year or so.
IR35 is a state of fear. It keeps people worried and for a few it puts them off. They go back to being perm because it scares them.
The government is quietly destroying contracting through the back door - by reducing tax benefits, increasing direct taxation and decreasing the margin that contractors 'make' through increased rates vs permies. The incentive to contract becomes less each year as we earn less but still have the issues of pensions, sick pay and business costs etc etc.
They have been doing this for a decade and IPSE is now plainly part of the problem, not any kind of solution I can recognise.
So the energy and knowledge and sometime outright IR35 fanaticism displayed on this site is all wasted. In 5 years contracting as we know it won't exist.
The bum-on-seaters shouldn't be pushed into IR35 - the employers should be engaging them in FTCs, so that they stump up the employer NICs as HMRC want.
Leave a comment:
- 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: