Reply to: IR35 Buddy - worth a closer look, maybe

[amcdonald]

Just the word "buddy" is enough to put me off.

I thought it was rather apt, after all you'll probably have a "buddy" in prison

[Sausage Surprise]

Just the word "buddy" is enough to put me off.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Couldn't have put it better myself

[DaveB]

It looks as though they give you a 'receipt' for time spent

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Especially since HMRC's own guidance lists copies of the advert and invoices as appropriate evidence.

If I was HMRC looking at a submission that claimed to have "spent" £1200 updating an online profile I'd expect to see evidence that that time could have been spent generating income at least equal to that amount. If you did it on your own time you weren't getting paid for it anyway, if you did in in billable hours you should be able to show invoices minus the time spent resulting in a cost to your business.

It just doesn't fly IMO.

It looks as though they give you a 'receipt' for time spent

[tarbera]

PCG?

No-one is falling out, just differing in opinion. We are correct, and you are wrong. The fact that you have brolly girl, a couple of number crunchers, a PCG advocate and a few meat-heads all telling you so should give you a clue.

Anyway, much as I am not a fan of the PCG, I am not aware that it attempts to mis-represent contractors genuine positions by offering ways to try and avoid investigation through provision of deliberately misleading working options that enable boxes to be ticked. This is different to giving a genuine appraisal of a contractor's true position.

And if you aren't aware of the problems artificial box-ticking can cause, you need to do some serious reading.

PCG - Why not a Fan.?

[eek]

And if you aren't aware of the problems artificial box-ticking can cause, you need to do some serious reading.

+1 Easy solutions for the panicked clueless are not solutions, its praying on fears with scare stories, rumours and innuendo..

[amcdonald]

And if you aren't aware of the problems artificial box-ticking can cause, you need to do some serious reading.

The next step in box ticking addiction is learning Prince 2 and ITIL, then there is no cure

[GB9]

Trying not to twist your words here:
...and you're saying it might make you a bigger target for IR35 investigation.
...yet you also say IR35 Buddy is not remotely comparable.

Based on the above they sound pretty similar to me.

I just can't understand why people are so against it. Yes it's artificially helping you tick boxes (I'm not trying to argue it isn't, though perhaps IR35 buddy themselves might), but so are plenty of things most contractors have done for years.

No-one is falling out, just differing in opinion. We are correct, and you are wrong. The fact that you have brolly girl, a couple of number crunchers, a PCG advocate and a few meat-heads all telling you so should give you a clue.

Anyway, much as I am not a fan of the PCG, I am not aware that it attempts to mis-represent contractors genuine positions by offering ways to try and avoid investigation through provision of deliberately misleading working options that enable boxes to be ticked. This is different to giving a genuine appraisal of a contractor's true position.

And if you aren't aware of the problems artificial box-ticking can cause, you need to do some serious reading.

[northernladuk]

I don't see how any of those things are remotely comparable to signing up to a website which purports to provide protection, when I believe that they do the exact opposite.

I would think that actually, being a member of the PCG might well make you a bigger target - HMRC would know that there is a chance that you are going to be inside IR35 because of the kind of businesses which would be members.

And given the additional benefits of being a member of the PCG (jury duty cover, agency bankruptcy cover etc.), I'd think that many people would still be members if IR35 were to disappear completely tomorrow.

Hmm, I am not sure I agree with this. The fact it would have any members left without IR35, which I think it would looking at the blurb they send me means it is infinitely better and credible than a scheme set up to address one minor point only with no other support/info etc. PCG and this scheme are worlds apart. The insurance is a benefit to other resources, not the sole reason it exists.

Am with your arguments and all, just this one I think this one is a bit too sweeping to be correct.

Now if you said PCG+ makes you more a target than normal membership lol

[malvolio]

...
I would think that actually, being a member of the PCG might well make you a bigger target - HMRC would know that there is a chance that you are going to be inside IR35 because of the kind of businesses which would be members..

Huh? So that's nothing to do with the typical profile of the PCG member, plus them having access to a huge amount of detailed information on how best to run their business?

[northernladuk]

Re the unrelated advertising on the site point mudskipper raised, we got an email a few weeks back from QDOS about IR35Buddy. Basically the default was they would put a link to our site somewhere on their site, for free. We could opt out if we wanted. Imagine NW/In Touch and many other accountants who QDOS have some kind of relationship with got a very similar email. It's free advertising, so seemed silly to object (though sadly as it's free of course it doesn't help us reach the magic £1,200 at which point our business would become proper...!)

But you been identified as an individual so it would have been invalid...

Have you read the stickie?
http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...-2003-act.html

[Clare@InTouch]

Thanks Chris, that explains it

[Maslins]

I don't see how any of those things are remotely comparable to signing up to a website which purports to provide protection, when I believe that they do the exact opposite.

I would think that actually, being a member of the PCG might well make you a bigger target - HMRC would know that there is a chance that you are going to be inside IR35 because of the kind of businesses which would be members.

And given the additional benefits of being a member of the PCG (jury duty cover, agency bankruptcy cover etc.), I'd think that many people would still be members if IR35 were to disappear completely tomorrow.

Trying not to twist your words here:
I agree with you that PCG membership does offer things beyond IR35 protection, but my understanding is it was set up in response to IR35, to help its members protect themselves...so presumably you'd agree that makes it a website/organisation which primarily (though not solely) purports to provide protection?
...and you're saying it might make you a bigger target for IR35 investigation.
...yet you also say IR35 Buddy is not remotely comparable.

Based on the above they sound pretty similar to me.

I'm not trying to fall out with anyone here (though appear to be achieving it anyway!) I also have nothing to gain by arguing the toss either way. I just can't understand why people are so against it. Yes it's artificially helping you tick boxes (I'm not trying to argue it isn't, though perhaps IR35 buddy themselves might), but so are plenty of things most contractors have done for years.

Re the unrelated advertising on the site point mudskipper raised, we got an email a few weeks back from QDOS about IR35Buddy. Basically the default was they would put a link to our site somewhere on their site, for free. We could opt out if we wanted. Imagine NW/In Touch and many other accountants who QDOS have some kind of relationship with got a very similar email. It's free advertising, so seemed silly to object (though sadly as it's free of course it doesn't help us reach the magic £1,200 at which point our business would become proper...!)

[jamesbrown]

Are you also a bigger target if:
You join the PCG?
You have your contract reviewed by an IR35 specialist?
You get a right of substitution clause put in your contract?

All the above are things people do with the primary purpose of gaining comfort they're outside IR35. If IR35 didn't exist, no contractor would bother with any of the above (with the possible exception of the last one, but only for a tiny minority). They're all artificial reactions to tax law. I don't see why this is any different.

Er, it's not for gaining comfort. It's necessary to apply due diligence in operating your company, which includes having contracts reviewed, appropriately worded and reflecting the reality, as IR35 is largely a company liability. I don't need IR35Buddy for that, and I struggle to see why anyone would, but each to their own, I suppose. In the absence of IR35, there would definitely be a clause on subcontracting and assignment, and substitution would be a practical reality in some cases (even if the clause wasn't required, as subcontracting vs. substitution is less important from the client's POV). I'd have my contracts reviewed for legal terms anyway, if not IR35. I'd also be a member of PCG. That being said, bleeding of information wouldn't be a major criticism of IR35Buddy for me, as HMRC could target better sources of info., such as agencies whose contracts are known to be questionable.