Reply to: contract term

[SteelyDan]

You bolded the wrong part.

Don't think I did. Client isn't pub sec so it's not applicable, or am I missing your point?

[LondonManc]

Yeah I see that, but that's was an extract from a lower schedule where I'm personally referred to as the consultant of the supplier (myco). In the main contract upper section it says this:

Taxation.
9.1 Where the Consultant is liable to be taxed in the UK in respect of consideration received under this contract, he shall at all times comply with the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA) and Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (SSCBA) and all other statutes and regulations relating to income tax and National Insurance Contributions. 9.2 Where the Client is a public sector body, it may at any time during the term of this Contract, request the Supplier to provide information which demonstrates how the Consultant complies with Clause 9.1 above, or appropriate evidence why it considers that Clause 9.1 does not apply to the Consultant.

The bit in bold (above) is something I didn't initially notice, but the client isn't pub sec, so this won't apply. So it seems this is a generic contract which would cover all sectors.

You bolded the wrong part.

[SteelyDan]

Exactly this, the wording is not B2B it is saying it is saying "you" what does your personal Tax situation have to do with one Business supplying another business, This is a massive red flag and alarm bells would be ringing for me

Yeah I see that, but that's was an extract from a lower schedule where I'm personally referred to as the consultant of the supplier (myco). In the main contract upper section it says this:

Taxation.
9.1 Where the Consultant is liable to be taxed in the UK in respect of consideration received under this contract, he shall at all times comply with the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA) and Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (SSCBA) and all other statutes and regulations relating to income tax and National Insurance Contributions. 9.2 Where the Client is a public sector body, it may at any time during the term of this Contract, request the Supplier to provide information which demonstrates how the Consultant complies with Clause 9.1 above, or appropriate evidence why it considers that Clause 9.1 does not apply to the Consultant.

The bit in bold (above) is something I didn't initially notice, but the client isn't pub sec, so this won't apply. So it seems this is a generic contract which would cover all sectors.

[Support Monkey]

It's all very person-centric i.e. "I" and "my" rather than a contract between two businesses.

Exactly this, the wording is not B2B it is saying it is saying "you" what does your personal Tax situation have to do with one Business supplying another business, This is a massive red flag and alarm bells would be ringing for me

[northernladuk]

Yep, given timescales involved, I've taken this tack, spoken to agency & advised if I'm asked to provide such info, I'll decline & they can invoke termination.

And your IR35 status? Especially when it's been pointed out it's focussed on 'I'?

[northernladuk]

I'm different to Northern.

I'd just sign it and if they ever come asking then I'd keep stalling until they eventually (possibly) terminate me. Most likely nothing would ever happen.

Sadly that makes you part of the problem others face and let the agents pull these tricks because they can get away with it.

What if the contract would have also failed IR35 but you don't really know? You'd keep working until HMRC come calling and bankrupt you. Great plan that.

[GB9]

If it isnt a government department then tell them to strike it out. Personally I wouldn't touch with a long pole. Your tax affairs have nothing to do with the end client.

[SteelyDan]

I'm different to Northern.

I'd just sign it and if they ever come asking then I'd keep stalling until they eventually (possibly) terminate me. Most likely nothing would ever happen.

Yep, given timescales involved, I've taken this tack, spoken to agency & advised if I'm asked to provide such info, I'll decline & they can invoke termination.

[SueEllen]

Being up against the clock doesn't mean you shouldn't get the contract reviewed.

If the client is public sector then you expect to get terms like that in. Personally if you are worried about giving notice you can leave the term in.

[Cirrus]

Can't see you'll get the nod from QDOS

I'm different to Northern.

I'd just sign it and if they ever come asking then I'd keep stalling until they eventually (possibly) terminate me. Most likely nothing would ever happen.

[adubya]

It's all very person-centric i.e. "I" and "my" rather than a contract between two businesses.

If QDOS do turn it round in a day and they turn up with a FAIL then what next ? Can't see contract change modifications completing before Monday.

[northernladuk]

thanks but am up against the clock on this, monday start, it's via an agency, organisation is a charity. What's the fees for QDOS these days and can they turn around in a day?

Yes. It will cost you but they do a 24 hour service.

This is a perfect example of where a review must be done regardless of timescales. I'll delay the start of the gig a day or two if need be. Starting with an unreviewed contract with odd clauses in will only end in tears.

[SteelyDan]

Could try a quick Google as well.
https://corriculo.co.uk/itepa-mean-r...sonal-details/

thanks but am up against the clock on this, monday start, it's via an agency, organisation is a charity. What's the fees for QDOS these days and can they turn around in a day?

[northernladuk]

Could try a quick Google as well.
https://corriculo.co.uk/itepa-mean-r...sonal-details/

[northernladuk]

You could ask QDOS for clarrification when you put it in for review?

Are you direct or via an agency?