Originally posted by jamesbrown
View Post
- 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!
Reply to: IR35 - Reviewed by 2 accountants
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 "IR35 - Reviewed by 2 accountants"
Collapse
-
Last edited by Zero Liability; 2 December 2013, 21:53.
-
Originally posted by Clare@InTouch View PostKeeping less funds in the account has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of an investigation. What it does do is ensure that if HMRC decide you're inside then the funds available for them to take in back taxes are limited - unless they decide to go after the directors/shareholders personally (in cases of fraud or negligence).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MickeyP View PostIs this true? Does keeping low funds in company account make you less likely to get a visit from HMRC? I thought they could come after the Director if they needed to?
Does anybody who has had experience of an IR35 investigation have any comments?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostI am in a pretty similar situation as the OP. I had an initial review done by B&C, and then submitted the same info (including the info in the questionnaire) to Accountax, who came out with the opposite conclusion. I am planning to get a CoA from the client project manager, to try and mitigate risk.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jessica@WhiteFieldTax View PostOh, thats frustrating.
Chat to your accountant about ways of mitigating funds at stake. Generally that means keeping as little in the company as possible.
Does anybody who has had experience of an IR35 investigation have any comments?Last edited by MickeyP; 2 December 2013, 14:42.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostI am in a pretty similar situation as the OP. I had an initial review done by B&C, and then submitted the same info (including the info in the questionnaire) to Accountax, who came out with the opposite conclusion. I am planning to get a CoA from the client project manager, to try and mitigate risk.
Chat to your accountant about ways of mitigating funds at stake. Generally that means keeping as little in the company as possible.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jessica@WhiteFieldTax View PostAs others have said, working practices are vital, and any IR35 opinion without reviewing working practices is worth little or nothing.
Its also important to be honest about working practices; just putting on a questionnaire what you would like the position to be doesn't help; you need to be honest and document the working practices as they are and can be proved to be (and retain evidence to support that). That possibly means any pre contract assessment of IR35 status has to be provisional pending things actually settling down, depending on how confident you are and how much leverage you have.
Ultimately IR35 status is your decision, so you can ignore the reviews if you think your assessment is better - that comes down to your own personal attitude to risk.Last edited by Zero Liability; 23 November 2013, 17:00.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cosmokramer View PostI have just had my day rate increased and the agency has issued a new contract. This new contract has exactly the same terms and length as the previous contract, the only difference being the change in rate. I had the previous contract reviewed for IR35 compliance. Do I need to have the new contract reviewed even if it is the same terms and conditions as the previous contract? Just weary of ticking the 'took all reasonable measures' box. Thanks.
Leave a comment:
-
HMRC Contract Copy
A friend of mine recently got a contract through an agency for an IT role at HMRC. It's obviously well written from an IR35 viewpoint but not really different to any other contract I've seen.
HMRC take on contractors on exactly the same basis as every other organisation/business.
Leave a comment:
-
Accountants perspective
As an accountant my position with IR35 is always to offer advice with the caveat that in reality the client knows the day to day working practices of their contract better than I do. I will tell them whether I think from my perspective there is a risk and why and they will usually come back with a defence. I will also refer them to Qdos so they can take up insurances or get a full contract review if they wish.
I do keep a record on my systems of my clients that are close to IR35 risk so that I can review their positions / nudge clients on a periodic basis.
John Falcon
JF Financial Management
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cosmokramer View PostI have just had my day rate increased and the agency has issued a new contract. This new contract has exactly the same terms and length as the previous contract, the only difference being the change in rate. I had the previous contract reviewed for IR35 compliance. Do I need to have the new contract reviewed even if it is the same terms and conditions as the previous contract? Just weary of ticking the 'took all reasonable measures' box. Thanks.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cosmokramer View PostI have just had my day rate increased and the agency has issued a new contract. This new contract has exactly the same terms and length as the previous contract, the only difference being the change in rate. I had the previous contract reviewed for IR35 compliance. Do I need to have the new contract reviewed even if it is the same terms and conditions as the previous contract? Just weary of ticking the 'took all reasonable measures' box. Thanks.
Leave a comment:
-
I have just had my day rate increased and the agency has issued a new contract. This new contract has exactly the same terms and length as the previous contract, the only difference being the change in rate. I had the previous contract reviewed for IR35 compliance. Do I need to have the new contract reviewed even if it is the same terms and conditions as the previous contract? Just weary of ticking the 'took all reasonable measures' box. Thanks.
Leave a comment:
-
As others have said, working practices are vital, and any IR35 opinion without reviewing working practices is worth little or nothing.
Its also important to be honest about working practices; just putting on a questionnaire what you would like the position to be doesn't help; you need to be honest and document the working practices as they are and can be proved to be (and retain evidence to support that). That possibly means any pre contract assessment of IR35 status has to be provisional pending things actually settling down, depending on how confident you are and how much leverage you have.
Ultimately IR35 status is your decision, so you can ignore the reviews if you think your assessment is better - that comes down to your own personal attitude to risk.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostWill QDOS review your accounts for you? No they won't so I wouldn't be totally convinced by an an accountants review for IR35. I would want one from an IR35 specialist such as QDOS or B&C.
Out of interest what reasons did they give for being in and out. IR35 is a minefield and alot of opinion has to be applied. Not only that most elements bar the big 4 tend to be flags, not complete pointers. The wording of the sub clause can cause contention for example. If it hints that the client has the ability to refuse a sub for no reason QDOS will suggest you change it to them only refusing subs that are unsuitable.
Post the comment that makes it inside and lets see what the masses here say.
You could of course research the element that they say is inside and understand it properly first so you can make your own opinion.
Leave a comment:
Partners
- 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: