Reply to: Multiple Clients vs IR35

[blakeyuk]

However, I decided to tell B******s that I had multiple clients, was a proper business and had an employee that they could use occasionally within the same daily rate payment. They loved this and I was able to use her during my holiday, so I billed almost my normal amount despite having a couple of weeks off.

Funnily enough, that's who my first gig is with (in Glasgow, though).

[Old Greg]

Sure, people that have multiple concurrent clients probably have a whole host of other things in their favor, as a general rule (as I said a couple of times above). I'm not arguing that point at all. But looking at the type of conditional statistics you're alluding to above won't help you understand much for specific cases (correlation != causation), because having multiple concurrent clients is not at the core of what determines status.

How disgustingly cogent.

[GillsMan]

Sure, people that have multiple concurrent clients probably have a whole host of other things in their favor, as a general rule (as I said a couple of times above). I'm not arguing that point at all. But looking at the type of conditional statistics you're alluding to above won't help you understand much for specific cases (correlation != causation), because having multiple concurrent clients is not at the core of what determines status.

Yes, I'd agree with that, and I think that's definitely the case in my situation. When you have multiple contracts you often find that you get more fixed-price work, which according to the business entity tests is a good thing. And in my situation, I used it to earn a load of money, which has enabled me to fund other things that make me look like a proper business, such as advertising spend (well, I paid a branding agency to do some work, create my website, etc), and hire a full time permanent staff who I bill out as a consultant. Not that I do these things to try to avoid IR35, but I do agree that multiple clients helps get you in that real mindset, can be very lucrative, and can help move you away from the bum-on-a-seat contractor model (not that there's anything wrong with that model IMO).

[jamesbrown]

And this is the point I think. In practice what types of people are getting investigated and what types of people are losing?

I can make a good case on D&C and MOO, and I have an RoS clause that is probably as enforceable as anyone else's.

But I have one contract to deliver 26 days professional services over 3 months and another to deliver 80 days over 6 months. and that factor doesn't feel to me much like employment, or like someone who loses an IR35 case.

Sure, people that have multiple concurrent clients probably have a whole host of other things in their favor, as a general rule (as I said a couple of times above). I'm not arguing that point at all. But looking at the type of conditional statistics you're alluding to above won't help you understand much for specific cases (correlation != causation), because having multiple concurrent clients is not at the core of what determines status.

[jamesbrown]

It´s definitely more than a factor that only becomes important after weighing everything else up, a minor point. I think any inspector who does a routine check up would be far less likely to question multiple simultaneous contracts than a contractor with one contract.

I don´t know any employees that have multiple jobs, not in IT, and if they did only one would be the main job.

After all this is legislation to prevent disguised employment.

Sure if you had two contracts but one was two or three hours a month it wouldn´t be worth much but juggling several clients is more than just a pointer that you´re outside IR35.

There's a lot of speculation about one thing or another and everything about IR35 is imprecise, even the more precise stuff .

There are two separate things here though. Risk profiling and actual status. Who knows about the former, I'm sure it could be a factor, along with what the inspector ate for breakfast. The business entity tests are part of that too. Certainly, it's an element of being "in business." As for being an important part of actual status though, that isn't borne out by the legislation (being applied on a contract-by-contract basis) or the case law that I'm aware of. But, I'm happy to hear otherwise....there are probably cases I'm not really familiar with. But I don't think you can say it's "definitely more than a factor...a minor point" without providing some supporting evidence of that....

[Old Greg]

It´s definitely more than a factor that only becomes important after weighing everything else up, a minor point. I think any inspector who does a routine check up would be far less likely to question multiple simultaneous contracts than a contractor with one contract.

I don´t know any employees that have multiple jobs, not in IT, and if they did only one would be the main job.

After all this is legislation to prevent disguised employment.

Sure if you had two contracts but one was two or three hours a month it wouldn´t be worth much but juggling several clients is more than just a pointer that you´re outside IR35.

And this is the point I think. In practice what types of people are getting investigated and what types of people are losing?

I can make a good case on D&C and MOO, and I have an RoS clause that is probably as enforceable as anyone else's.

But I have one contract to deliver 26 days professional services over 3 months and another to deliver 80 days over 6 months. and that factor doesn't feel to me much like employment, or like someone who loses an IR35 case.

[BlasterBates]

It´s definitely more than a factor that only becomes important after weighing everything else up, a minor point. I think any inspector who does a routine check up would be far less likely to question multiple simultaneous contracts than a contractor with one contract.

I don´t know any employees that have multiple jobs, not in IT, and if they did only one would be the main job.

After all this is legislation to prevent disguised employment.

Sure if you had two contracts but one was two or three hours a month it wouldn´t be worth much but juggling several clients is more than just a pointer that you´re outside IR35.

[jamesbrown]

It's one of several factors that makes me feel safe...

That's fine, but on the general point of having concurrent clients, it's not at the core of IR35, rather one of many factors that will help to build a broader picture (which may help for borderline cases, but it would be pretty bass-akwards to let IR35 influence those sort of decisions )

[Old Greg]

You shouldn't. One of the earlier IR35 lost appeals was for someone with multiple concurrent contracts. Go look up Synaptek...

It's one of several factors that makes me feel safe...

[malvolio]

Thanks for the example.

But pragmatically speaking, I feel pretty safe with multiple clients.

You shouldn't. One of the earlier IR35 lost appeals was for someone with multiple concurrent contracts. Go look up Synaptek...

[Old Greg]

The fact remains that it applies on a contract-by-contract basis. However, I dare say that the few contractors working with multiple simultaneous clients (as opposed to billing your mate for a days work) are probably far removed from operating as permies anyway. In answer to the specific question above though, I think the contractor in the JLJ case (the split decision) was doing some work for other clients, although my recollection may be wrong. Anyway, that split case decision is evidence that it applies to each new contract/extension.

Thanks for the example.

But pragmatically speaking, I feel pretty safe with multiple clients.

[quackhandle]

Do we know of anyone with genuine multiple clients who has been ruled to be inside IR35?

I say genuine as I have know contractors who believe that invoicing their mate for £250 puts them outside IR35.

Haha, I can do it for 200 sobs.

qh

[jamesbrown]

The fact remains that it applies on a contract-by-contract basis. However, I dare say that the few contractors working with multiple simultaneous clients (as opposed to billing your mate for a days work) are probably far removed from operating as permies anyway. In answer to the specific question above though, I think the contractor in the JLJ case (the split decision) was doing some work for other clients, although my recollection may be wrong. Anyway, that split case decision is evidence that it applies to each new contract/extension.

[Old Greg]

I would say it is a very strong pointer outside IR35. In the one case that I read the judge at a tribunal included it in the reasons why he judged in favour of a contractor.

The point is inspectors have limited resources in it is highly unlikely they´ll go after someone with multiple simultaneous clients when a) it´s not on their list of likely targets b) a lot more work sifting through lots of contracts. They´ll just move on to an easier target that fits their criteria.

So while there is a theoretical possibility of you being caught it is highly unlikely and I would sit back and relax.

Do we know of anyone with genuine multiple clients who has been ruled to be inside IR35?

I say genuine as I have know contractors who believe that invoicing their mate for £250 puts them outside IR35.

[BlasterBates]

I would say it is a very strong pointer outside IR35. In the one case that I read the judge at a tribunal included it in the reasons why he judged in favour of a contractor.

The point is inspectors have limited resources in it is highly unlikely they´ll go after someone with multiple simultaneous clients when a) it´s not on their list of likely targets b) a lot more work sifting through lots of contracts. They´ll just move on to an easier target that fits their criteria.

So while there is a theoretical possibility of you being caught it is highly unlikely and I would sit back and relax.