Originally posted by northernladuk
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!
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 "IR35 - We passed the CEST tool test too easily ???"
Collapse
-
-
Are you running against an actual gig or just playing with the answers? When the client runs it against his perception of the gig it might be a completely different case. We can all pass putting in stuff we think will work.
Leave a comment:
-
IR35 - We passed the CEST tool test too easily ???
You could sub your wife in for a couple of days while you go on hols... that would demonstrate that it’s not a sham ROS? And pretty much secure your status (within this contract) as outside.
Leave a comment:
-
If you can convincingly demonstrate either a valid (not unreasonably fettered) right of substitution or an adequate lack of D&C, then the contract is outside. Either one is sufficient, in general. The same also applies for a lack of sufficient mutuality of obligation, but the CEST tool does not consider this.
Based on your description, I think you’d be in a solid position, in principle, but you’d still need to demonstrate, in reality, a valid right of substitution for each contract. In other words, you cannot just assert this as a right. As I say, if you can demonstrate that right, the absence of a requirement for personal service is a sufficient condition, in theory. Ultimately, the CEST tool itself is flawed, but if you can get your client to agree the outcome (e.g. sign it), I see no harm in retaining it to demonstrate your position, based on what they’ve said about respecting it when answered truthfully.
Leave a comment:
-
IR35 - We passed the CEST tool test too easily ???
Hi
I took the CEST tool test today and passed it. Whilst that sounds good, I'm a bit puzzled by how quickly it passed me, how few of the questions it asked, let me explain.
My wife and I are joint shareholders (50/50) in our Ltd company. We actually met at work, we have the same profession, very similar levels of experience and expertise. Essentially we both do the same work, contracting for Clients.
When taking the CEST tool test this morning, as you'll be aware, one of the very first questions it asks you is about right of substitution. In our case, whilst we've never had to exercise it for a client, the reality is that either one of us could do the other persons job quite competently, the Client wouldn't suffer. Obviously in the event that this was necessary (due to illness etc) then the 'worker' that replaced me (my wife) would be paid for by our company of course. Box ticked.
Here's the odd thing. On inputting this information into the tool it immediately came up with the resulting confirmation we are 'Outside the intermediaries legislation' and therfore IR35. This puzzled me as it didn't at any stage even bother asking all the other questions, e.g.
Are we paid an hourly/daily rate basis or fixed rate or piece of work?
Does the client have any control over the worker?
Is the worker required to work onsite? using their own materials etc?
The Tool makes a point that the confirmaton is an approval that HMRC have passed us and can be used as such.
Am I missing something, or is a genuine right of substitution therefore the absolute key overriding ingredient to being outside IR35?
Nothing else matters if you can demonstrate that?
Cheers
MTags: 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
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Today 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Yesterday 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
- Contracting Awards 2024 hails 19 firms as best of the best Nov 18 09:13
- How to answer at interview, ‘What’s your greatest weakness?’ Nov 14 09:59
- Business Asset Disposal Relief changes in April 2025: Q&A Nov 13 09:37
- How debt transfer rules will hit umbrella companies in 2026 Nov 12 09:28
- IT contractor demand floundering despite Autumn Budget 2024 Nov 11 09:30
- An IR35 bill of £19m for National Resources Wales may be just the tip of its iceberg Nov 7 09:20
- Micro-entity accounts: Overview, and how to file with HMRC Nov 6 09:27
Leave a comment: