Reply to: IR35buddy

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

But we don't gravitate to them. We have to use whichever has the gig available. We rarely have the choice of which agency to use. To say contractors that can't be bothered to understand their responsibilites use bigger agencies is just plain wrong. Surely HMRC are not this daft.

Sorry I could who've worded that better. By the law of averages there will be more easy pickings in one of the bigger agencies just on the grounds of a bigger population.

Don't assume daftness or otherwise with HMRC, they think differently to those of us in the commercial world, they have a different agenda not always clear at first sight.

[Zero Liability]

Don't be ridiculous

HMRC target agencies, professional organisations, car showrooms and welsh language classes for iR35 investigations. They could be lurking anywhere !!

You forgot those tax-dodging lemonade stands. If HMRC ever close in on them...

[MyUserName]

Surely HMRC are not this daft.

Are you sure you are cut out to be a contractor?

[northernladuk]

Au contraie.

You, and most people on here, are well briefed.

There are an ** awful ** lot of people who aren't, or who stick heads in the sand. A lot of those will be gravitating to the big agencies. I still feel it would be easy pickings!

But we don't gravitate to them. We have to use whichever has the gig available. We rarely have the choice of which agency to use. To say contractors that can't be bothered to understand their responsibilites use bigger agencies is just plain wrong. Surely HMRC are not this daft.

[Jessica@WhiteFieldTax]

I thought IR35 investigations were most likely to be triggered by other tax issues so all these targetting certain groups through agencies and membership is a big red herring no? The idea that HMRC would target Hays contractors just sound ludicrous. What about targetting people on certain factors to improve chances of winning? Surely that would be much more sensible.

Au contraie.

You, and most people on here, are well briefed.

There are an ** awful ** lot of people who aren't, or who stick heads in the sand. A lot of those will be gravitating to the big agencies. I still feel it would be easy pickings!

[GB9]

If I were hmrc....

Box on tax return stating delivery through a service company ticked

Low paye

Low expenses

High dividend

That would return enough results to keep hmrc busy for years.

[Maslins]

Best to be in business on your own account then, and spend time doing that rather than ridiculous conspiracy theories about targeting members on non members of an organisation or trying to place yourself in a false relationship with someone to look like a business.

Agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure that's what the more experienced contractors do. The more junior ones less so, partly as they don't have the power to dictate terms with clients/agents (ie they take what they can get), partly naivety.

I imagine from HMRC's perspective, more experienced ones make juicier targets though (if they were to win), as they'll likely have been trading longer on a higher day rate, hence more tax at stake.

Appreciate this is all just speculation.

[TestMangler]

I thought IR35 investigations were most likely to be triggered by other tax issues so all these targetting certain groups through agencies and membership is a big red herring no? The idea that HMRC would target Hays contractors just sound ludicrous. What about targetting people on certain factors to improve chances of winning? Surely that would be much more sensible.

Don't be ridiculous

HMRC target agencies, professional organisations, car showrooms and welsh language classes for iR35 investigations. They could be lurking anywhere !!

[northernladuk]

I thought IR35 investigations were most likely to be triggered by other tax issues so all these targetting certain groups through agencies and membership is a big red herring no? The idea that HMRC would target Hays contractors just sound ludicrous. What about targetting people on certain factors to improve chances of winning? Surely that would be much more sensible.

[TestMangler]

I think that's the toss up for HMRC.

On the one hand PCG/QDOS members will mostly be contractors, hence at higher risk of being inside IR35. On the other, they'll have professional representation so be well defended.

If HMRC deliberately go for non members, then whilst they will be less likely to have a good defence team, there's also a fair chance the reason they're not members is because IR35 doesn't come remotely close to applying to them.

I guess the argument some would have against IR35 buddy is that it flags you're concerned about IR35, but doesn't by itself give you the professional defence team.

Best to be in business on your own account then, and spend time doing that rather than ridiculous conspiracy theories about targeting members on non members of an organisation or trying to place yourself in a false relationship with someone to look like a business.

[Maslins]

I'm obviously missing something here. Why in the hell would HMRC target the membership list of an organisation who's members will all be professionally and rigorously defended against claims of being inside IR35 ???

I think that's the toss up for HMRC.

On the one hand PCG/QDOS members will mostly be contractors, hence at higher risk of being inside IR35. On the other, they'll have professional representation so be well defended.

If HMRC deliberately go for non members, then whilst they will be less likely to have a good defence team, there's also a fair chance the reason they're not members is because IR35 doesn't come remotely close to applying to them.

I guess the argument some would have against IR35 buddy is that it flags you're concerned about IR35, but doesn't by itself give you the professional defence team.

[TestMangler]

Worrying that they were all from one agency. Gives some weight to the theory that HMRC are targeting via agency.

Agree with you about insurance thing. Who were/are you with? PCG/QDOS/other?

Move along ! No conspiracy to see here !

These were totally separate incidents spanning four years, with three of them having specific reasons for the enquiry, not related to the agency.

I was on the freebie (as in 'included in the package') insurance that came with Shout99 at the time. I think they all lead back to one or two providers though (I could be wrong) so the source of the policy is not relevant.

[TestMangler]

Aren't Hayes' contracts usually non-ir35 friendly?

Also, to Psycho, were the people you know all at the same end client?

There are a number of criteria I would look for if I were HMRC looking for a cohort of investigation candidates. Being PCG and QDOS members / policy holders wouldn't be one of them.

Please read my post several pages back.

Opinions are like a**e-holes, everyone has one. Doesn't make it a fact.

I'm obviously missing something here. Why in the hell would HMRC target the membership list of an organisation who's members will all be professionally and rigorously defended against claims of being inside IR35 ???

[DirtyDog]

And yet you wonder why me and NLUK always reply to your posts.

And yet you wonder why NLUK and I always reply to your posts.

[GB9]

Aren't Hayes' contracts usually non-ir35 friendly?

Also, to Psycho, were the people you know all at the same end client?

There are a number of criteria I would look for if I were HMRC looking for a cohort of investigation candidates. Being PCG and QDOS members / policy holders wouldn't be one of them.