- 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 "Legal action / Mislead contract was outside IR35"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by cyborg1337 View PostSo the consensus here is that you find a contract that is outside IR35, you get the paperwork checked out all is fine.
You start working, you try operate outside of IR35 from day one. It's fine first few months but then later little things start happening and the Client is not respecting the terms of the contract.
At that point you call it quits, pay the taxes and the client gets away with it and cycle repeats. Damn life really can be unfair.
The thought of taking the client to court is faintly ludicrous. You could be doing that more than once in your contracting career.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostNo they don't under the new April rules the right determination is Inside IR35 and blanket bans on PSCs as staff cannot be trusted to keep less diligent contractors outside..
As I've stated on numerous times today - the new approach seems to be justified in soo many ways.
When I pushed back and operated how I should if I'm outside, it got my contract terminated. I'll admit and pay my taxes. Will the supplier own up to their mistakes and pay for them?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cyborg1337 View PostLike I said; Immediately there wasn't a problem. Gradually later in the year, as things progressed, people changed, things got tricky.
On the most part I operated as outside IR35, which in the end resulted in my contract being ended.
And they are getting away it. Also they really need to train up their incompetent staff on dealing with outside IR35 contractors.
As I've stated on numerous times today - the new approach seems to be justified in soo many ways.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostIn which case you would know the importance of your working practices and you failed to follow QDOS's advice...
On the most part I operated as outside IR35, which in the end resulted in my contract being ended.
And they are getting away it. Also they really need to train up their incompetent staff on dealing with outside IR35 contractors.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI'm not sure that's an option - it's one thing to attack a company that has zero capital and is really a labour enterprise (as contracting is) and another to use the same rules for a close company like my new one (£150,000 capital ignoring 9 months of my time (completely unpaid) which would otherwise have been another £120,000).
One deserves very different rules to the other yet both are close companies.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostThere are degrees of change. Addressing the imbalances between employment and tax law is a fundamental change that would require a massive majority and a gov't focused on that (if that's what you mean, I agree). Pushing through something akin to look-through for close company directors is a tax change and comparatively easy. There are ways to increase taxes on close company directors that don't look anything like IR35 (and are much better, more equitable), even if they are papering over the employment law/tax law imbalance.
One deserves very different rules to the other yet both are close companies.Last edited by eek; 23 February 2020, 16:39.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostThere isn't actually that many times when you can start to implement the fundamental changes that are required. It requires a new Government with a large majority for it to occur.
And this is the first time since 2005 when such a Government has existed - sadly I think there are more pressing issues...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostNo I don't get your point - as I don't think you did anything to confirm what the agent said was correct.,
Let me repeat my first question:-
Did you get an outside professional (say QDOS) to check that your contract was actually outside IR35 or did you just take the agency's word for it. I won't even ask about my second working conditions part.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostRight, the UK is thick-as-mince in this area of policy, as in some others. Our civil service just doesn't understand the sunk cost fallacy and prefer to double down on thick-as-mince.
This is the first time since 2005 when such a Government has existed - and sadly I think there are more pressing issues...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostAll those solutions require a sensible debate and HMRC know that that is never going to occur....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cyborg1337 View PostI feel like you get my point; but won't admit. No hard feelings.
I'm prepared to own and pay for my mistakes, it just bothers me that companies get away so easily (well let's see what happens).
Let me repeat my first question:-
Did you get an outside professional (say QDOS) to check that your contract was actually outside IR35 or did you just take the agency's word for it. I won't even ask about my second working conditions part.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostMostly the abuse is just ignorance. I have nothing against contractors paying more tax as a policy decision (I would prefer to pay less, but hey ho, this is a democracy ). However, IR35 has always been a thick-as-mince UK solution to an international problem with much better solutions. It's been central to a whole host of disasters in recent years, such as tax avoidance schemes/loan charge, legislative uncertainty, permietractoring as a viable thing etc. We either need strict deeming criteria, which is the standard approach in most other jurisdictions, or we need to align taxes on earned and unearned income, at least for close company owner directors (aka "look through"). This is all blindingly obvious.
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: