Reply to: Being a GM and IR35

[jamesbrown]

It's an IR35 lawyer.

In that case, it really doesn't matter what anyone tells you here. If you've had it reviewed by an IR35 expert, including the working practices, then that opinion is better than any of our opinions, end of story.

[Boston4315]

It's an IR35 lawyer.

As mentioned before there was no intention to be cagey or to break the rules. It was to ensure I was within the rules and to improve my knowledge on the position. Thanks for the advice.

[jamesbrown]

By a lawyer who specialises in IR35 or just a standard contract lawyer?

This is the important question for the OP.

If the OP answers this clearly, then they won't appear so cagey...

[Fred Bloggs]

By a lawyer who specialises in IR35 or just a standard contract lawyer?

Because to a lot of us here it looks like the paperwork may say you are outside but the very nature of your position within the business puts you very much inside.

Absolutely, and when Hector comes knocking he works from the reality of the situation. The paper makes little difference. To an extent, it depends on risk appetite and how much use can be made of a SIPP to IR35 proof the job. But, for sure, typical GM role is caught, without a doubt.

[eek]

By a lawyer, and it wasn't free.

By a lawyer who specialises in IR35 or just a standard contract lawyer?

Because to a lot of us here it looks like the paperwork may say you are outside but the very nature of your position within the business puts you very much inside.

[Boston4315]

By whom? QDOS or a.n.other accountant trying to keep their contractor accounting business going by offering free IR35 reviews?

By a lawyer, and it wasn't free.

[eek]

My apologies but there is no intention of being cagey at all and certainly no intention at all of breaking the rules. The contract (excluding the scope) has been reviewed for IR35 purposes. I've stated my view that I think the scope will change this yet the client thinks otherwise. Time will tell.

I was just trying to improve my knowledge on the situation.

By whom? QDOS or a.n.other accountant trying to keep their contractor accounting business going by offering free IR35 reviews?

[Boston4315]

Offering the OP our opinions w/r to IR35 is pretty pointless if they've really taken expert advice already.

I note, however, that the OP has been a bit cagey about that. Makes me wonder whether they've had a legal review but not an IR35 review, else had an accountant do the review, else paid for a cheap review of contractual terms only. It does smell a bit unlikely, given the circumstantial evidence but, again, our opinions are pretty worthless compared to the opinion of an expert reviewer that has all the facts (even if the assessment always carries a degree of subjectivity).

My apologies but there is no intention of being cagey at all and certainly no intention at all of breaking the rules. The contract (excluding the scope) has been reviewed for IR35 purposes. I've stated my view that I think the scope will change this yet the client thinks otherwise. Time will tell.

I was just trying to improve my knowledge on the situation.

[northernladuk]

Why raise additional red flags for HMRC by having the title of 'General Manager' on your contract, it smells of being a Permie.

Rebranding the role as a 'Management Consultant', doesn't cost anything and wont do any harm.

Ofcourse this isnt the only thing the OP should do, making sure his working practices put him firmly outside IR35 is obviously the most important.

Won't do any good either. He isn't rebranding, he's changing a title which is as close to irrelevant as it comes. They are a little bit smarter than this you know. Actually they aren't which is even worse.

[Fraidycat]

And that makes a difference how?

Damn sockies.

Why raise additional red flags for HMRC by having the title of 'General Manager' on your contract, it smells of being a Permie.

Rebranding the role as a 'Management Consultant', doesn't cost anything and wont do any harm.

Ofcourse this isnt the only thing the OP should do, making sure his working practices put him firmly outside IR35 is obviously the most important.

[Fred Bloggs]

cagey about the legal advice.
cagey about the client size.


I'm going out on a limb here and going to suggest that the OP has never been a contracted manager before.

I'll go further out on a limb and suggest that this role is nothing but a tax avoidance method and the role is a permanent one but the client doesn't want to pay full whack, and the OP wants to take more home.
In fact the only mentions of this being anything other than "permanent" was not by the OP.

So any outside determination is based more on a desire to be outside than a reality. Not that that is any different to most contractors over the last 20 years.

Absolutely, a traditional general manager role can never be outside IR35. You can pretend it is and take the risk, but that's not the same thing as truly being outside, obviously.

[jamesbrown]

Something certainly smells. Then again, half-truths and drip-feeding have become the norm around here.

[Lance]

Offering the OP our opinions w/r to IR35 is pretty pointless if they've really taken expert advice already.

I note, however, that the OP has been a bit cagey about that. Makes me wonder whether they've had a legal review but not an IR35 review, else had an accountant do the review, else paid for a cheap review of contractual terms only. It does smell a bit unlikely, given the circumstantial evidence but, again, our opinions are pretty worthless compared to the opinion of an expert reviewer that has all the facts (even if the assessment always carries a degree of subjectivity).

cagey about the legal advice.
cagey about the client size.


I'm going out on a limb here and going to suggest that the OP has never been a contracted manager before.

I'll go further out on a limb and suggest that this role is nothing but a tax avoidance method and the role is a permanent one but the client doesn't want to pay full whack, and the OP wants to take more home.
In fact the only mentions of this being anything other than "permanent" was not by the OP.

So any outside determination is based more on a desire to be outside than a reality. Not that that is any different to most contractors over the last 20 years.

[Lance]

Good advice here:

How the UK's IR35 tax rules affect interim and virtual CISOs | CSO Online

I'm not sure that works though.

The number of days a week has no bearing on IR35.
Also that article misses out a critical point in that CISO as a role is very specific and not appropriate for a contractor to provide.... There are responsibilities for risk acceptance for example that a company just cannot outsource. They can take advice from an external but then that external isn't really a CISO, they are just a security consultant.
Same with Data Protection Officers (who are often the same person as the CISO).

Admittedly CISOs are a different case to general managers.

[jamesbrown]

Offering the OP our opinions w/r to IR35 is pretty pointless if they've really taken expert advice already.

I note, however, that the OP has been a bit cagey about that. Makes me wonder whether they've had a legal review but not an IR35 review, else had an accountant do the review, else paid for a cheap review of contractual terms only. It does smell a bit unlikely, given the circumstantial evidence but, again, our opinions are pretty worthless compared to the opinion of an expert reviewer that has all the facts (even if the assessment always carries a degree of subjectivity).