Reply to: Options at end of 2 year contract (ending March 2020)

[WordIsBond]

£1000/day

Inside or outside?

[BlueSharp]

They already can link people to to off pay role positions via agency reporting requirements.

[Paralytic]

Does it matter? I just wouldn't do it.

£1000/day

[gables]

Inside or outside contract?

Does it matter? I just wouldn't do it.

[Paralytic]

Ha ha maybe; but on a moral\philosophical point if you had the skills to do this, would you actually do it ;-)

Inside or outside contract?

[gables]

They’ll need to get a couple of contractors in to link up the data.

Ha ha maybe; but on a moral\philosophical point if you had the skills to do this, would you actually do it ;-)

[Amanensia]

They’ll need to get a couple of contractors in to link up the data.

[gables]

To go back to previous contracts HMRC would have to be given lists by the clients because they do not get any information which links a client to a PSC to a director. Not that I can think of. They they might try attacking new umbrella 'employees' but they wouldn't immediately see which of those could be connected to previous assignments (the client won't be reported normally). It would not be straightforward at all to identify targets. For reasons I can't go into, I suspect HMRC would have tremendous difficulty getting the necessary management information.

I don't know what reasons you know about; but just thinking about what dots would need to be connected, given those dots I wouldn't imagine being in one database, would suggest it unlikely to be easy.

[Cirrus]

Why wouldn't they go after them if they believe they were incorrect all the time?

To go back to previous contracts HMRC would have to be given lists by the clients because they do not get any information which links a client to a PSC to a director. Not that I can think of. They they might try attacking new umbrella 'employees' but they wouldn't immediately see which of those could be connected to previous assignments (the client won't be reported normally). It would not be straightforward at all to identify targets. For reasons I can't go into, I suspect HMRC would have tremendous difficulty getting the necessary management information.

[BrilloPad]

Personally I really cannot believe the Revenue will go after people retrospectively.

I hope not. But HMRC have form in this area.

[northernladuk]

Personally I really cannot believe the Revenue will go after people retrospectively.

They must be so over-the-moon that they've finally won after all these years of miserable failure they'll be only too pleased to bank all the extra tax flooding in from PAYE. Rather than retreating into the past I suspect they'll be shining the radar for GSK-like attacks on any big lumps of non-compliers. Their new weapons are so much more fun to use to annihilate the scummy evaders.

Why wouldn't they go after them if they believe they were incorrect all the time? They've got a list of everyone outside that should have been inside. No brainer surely? Off the back of their win they can collect much back tax with little effort. I would.

[Cirrus]

Exterminate, exterminate!

Personally I really cannot believe the Revenue will go after people retrospectively.

They must be so over-the-moon that they've finally won after all these years of miserable failure they'll be only too pleased to bank all the extra tax flooding in from PAYE. Rather than retreating into the past I suspect they'll be shining the radar for GSK-like attacks on any big lumps of non-compliers. Their new weapons are so much more fun to use to annihilate the scummy evaders.

[northernladuk]

You're right, I was thinking this related to IR35 based on what some of my contractor colleagues have told me (perhaps they were confused with client 2 year rules). Obviously that was incorrect, but I'd appreciate if anyone can help with the original question, instead of criticising my IR35 knowledge, as if I knew everything I wouldn't be posting on this forum.

As mentioned already, there is a sticky at the top of this forum which will help you.

But TBF, with such a lack of knowledge around IR35 I'd say you want to be well away from this client before any determination is made to avoid whatever problems you've made yourself in the past 2 years. Thing is, because you don't understand IR35 you won't understand the risks or why you should do that.

But anyway, read the sticky.

[Kesteral]

He’s thinking of the 24 month rule for expenses, which isn’t as black and white as it sounds and has been discussed to death on this forum

You're right, I was thinking this related to IR35 based on what some of my contractor colleagues have told me (perhaps they were confused with client 2 year rules). Obviously that was incorrect, but I'd appreciate if anyone can help with the original question, instead of criticising my IR35 knowledge, as if I knew everything I wouldn't be posting on this forum.

[northernladuk]

He’s thinking of the 24 month rule for expenses, which isn’t as black and white as it sounds and has been discussed to death on this forum

He won't be. Many clients have a 2 year rule and most of the hiring managers don't really know why. The myth will circulate it's about contractors not claiming employment rights which then filters down to IR35 and the feckless then assume 2 years is an IR35 cut off. The reality is the 2 year rule is just a stake in the ground to stop keeping long term contractors on when the roles should have been converted to perms before this date.

Been at two clients where I hit the 2 year rule and had to leave and all the permatractors believe it to be because of the 'IR35 limit'. Most of these guys aren't aware enough of the 2 year expenses rule to mix it up.