Originally posted by gables
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!
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 "Query regarding public sector opportunities"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostProbably yes. HMRC would quite likely see the LofE as a sham arrangement intended to avoid (or even evade) a lawful tax burden. The LofE tries to mark you as working for the agency which, while contractually defensible, is not a real representation of your role or theirs.
The loophole they are trying to use is that if you are supplied as a manpower replacement - i.e. filling a role within the end client organisation - then PS IR35 rules apply and the PS makes the determination. If you are supplied as an external resource - individually or via a real consultancy with a manpower supply contract with the end client - then the old IR35 tests apply. The dividing line, in your case, is therefore the nature of the end role.
Remember the agency wants you in there so you earn them their money, nothing else. How they get you there is not really their concern. And since taxes are ultimately your problem, why should they care?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostAIUI the legislation is clear that in the public sector, a determination must be made about IR35 status and the correct level of tax must be deducted by the fee payer before passing the balance to the contractor limited company. The fee payer is always liable for making the correct payment to HMRC on behalf of the contractor.
In this situation, the determination has been made by the client as inside (first step is now to ask how they made that assessment, since they must provide that information within a set time period - failure to do so makes them liable for the tax) but the fee payer is essentially saying that they will make a gross payment without paying any tax or NI. Yet they are the ones who are liable for making sure this is correct - so either they are ignorant of the legislation, have a great lawyer who has spotted something here, or are prepared to chance not getting caught. All of which would set alarm bells ringing here - why are they prepared to put their business at risk for you? How does the benefit outweigh the risk to the agency in any way?
At first glance, this might look like it's not your problem - the risk lies with the fee payer (something that agencies have cried foul about since the draft legislation, if not before), so if they get it wrong then it's their problem not yours. If you are tempted then I would scour the contract and engagement letter carefully to see exactly what you might be letting yourself in for - there is evidence that more agents than before are including clauses which attempts to pass the liability down the chain to the individual (this is not legal, but there may be ways to word it so that you can still be caught - IANAL).
Bear in mind that the client has said that you are inside IR35 in the contract, so it would be an "interesting" test of the legislation if the fee payer didn't deduct those taxes because they have a letter in place between you and them which says otherwise. I'd be very interested to see the contents of the engagement letter so that I might be able to get a wiser man than I to look at it.
Personally, I wouldnt touch any role in the PS but that's my choice. The OP already has confirmation that whatever the arrangement, it is contrived to be outside IR35 since the role has been declared inside. The agent says the 'only' way to be outside is via this neferious letter of engagement.
I dont care what anyone says on this but the risk is just far too high imho.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pmeswani View PostWhilst I won't pretend to have put it that way, I'm glad someone understands where I am coming from. My concern is, if I go in and do the work under the banner of "Letter of Engagement", could I end up being within IR35?
The loophole they are trying to use is that if you are supplied as a manpower replacement - i.e. filling a role within the end client organisation - then PS IR35 rules apply and the PS makes the determination. If you are supplied as an external resource - individually or via a real consultancy with a manpower supply contract with the end client - then the old IR35 tests apply. The dividing line, in your case, is therefore the nature of the end role.
Remember the agency wants you in there so you earn them their money, nothing else. How they get you there is not really their concern. And since taxes are ultimately your problem, why should they care?
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks everyone. I think I will take Theresa Mays stance on this and say no deal is better than a bad deal. This sounds like more headache than what it is worth.
Leave a comment:
-
AIUI the legislation is clear that in the public sector, a determination must be made about IR35 status and the correct level of tax must be deducted by the fee payer before passing the balance to the contractor limited company. The fee payer is always liable for making the correct payment to HMRC on behalf of the contractor.
In this situation, the determination has been made by the client as inside (first step is now to ask how they made that assessment, since they must provide that information within a set time period - failure to do so makes them liable for the tax) but the fee payer is essentially saying that they will make a gross payment without paying any tax or NI. Yet they are the ones who are liable for making sure this is correct - so either they are ignorant of the legislation, have a great lawyer who has spotted something here, or are prepared to chance not getting caught. All of which would set alarm bells ringing here - why are they prepared to put their business at risk for you? How does the benefit outweigh the risk to the agency in any way?
At first glance, this might look like it's not your problem - the risk lies with the fee payer (something that agencies have cried foul about since the draft legislation, if not before), so if they get it wrong then it's their problem not yours. If you are tempted then I would scour the contract and engagement letter carefully to see exactly what you might be letting yourself in for - there is evidence that more agents than before are including clauses which attempts to pass the liability down the chain to the individual (this is not legal, but there may be ways to word it so that you can still be caught - IANAL).
Bear in mind that the client has said that you are inside IR35 in the contract, so it would be an "interesting" test of the legislation if the fee payer didn't deduct those taxes because they have a letter in place between you and them which says otherwise. I'd be very interested to see the contents of the engagement letter so that I might be able to get a wiser man than I to look at it.
Leave a comment:
-
You can ask for the output from the ESS tool as evidence of their decision. The one time I tried this with a PS client didn't go down very well though.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pmeswani View PostLike with the rest of my comments and my original post, I ask out of ignorance, would I ask the agency to provide some form of evidence from the client that the opportunity is outside IR35?
If I progress further and am offered the opportunity as a result, I will get in touch with QDOS and IPSE to see what they say, but I think I have enough ground to go back to the agency and say No Deal.
Equally because we don't know what is going on here speaking to QDOS and IPSE to see what they suggest would be an idea because at the moment no-one on here knows how to play this situation...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostSome agencies have changed to a managed service engagement and worked with the PS client to be outside. I'm a little suspicious how this would stand up to scrutiny should HMRC ever take an interest but as long as the PS body say its outside I guess it's a go for now. I wouldn't be confident about a simple letter of engagement being the only thing protecting me but you could get evidence they ran you through the the tool and were outside to back it up. I'd be straight on the phone to QDOS and the like about this one as well.
If I progress further and am offered the opportunity as a result, I will get in touch with QDOS and IPSE to see what they say, but I think I have enough ground to go back to the agency and say No Deal.
Leave a comment:
-
Some agencies have changed to a managed service engagement and worked with the PS client to be outside. I'm a little suspicious how this would stand up to scrutiny should HMRC ever take an interest but as long as the PS body say its outside I guess it's a go for now. I wouldn't be confident about a simple letter of engagement being the only thing protecting me but you could get evidence they ran you through the the tool and were outside to back it up. I'd be straight on the phone to QDOS and the like about this one as well.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pmeswani View PostWhilst I won't pretend to have put it that way, I'm glad someone understands where I am coming from. My concern is, if I go in and do the work under the banner of "Letter of Engagement", could I end up being within IR35?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pmeswani View PostGenerally speaking I would agree with you, but as the agency has approached me with an opportunity that was originally within IR35, would a letter of engagement (between the agency and the client as well as agency and myself) get around this issue?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostYou would be a far, far braver person than me and I would be checking what backup you would have if this went pear-shaped. If you are an IPSE member check with their helpdesk or speak to QDOS and see....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostHmm...I wonder if the PSB is going to be happy that their agency is trying to overturn their decision making?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pmeswani View PostGenerally speaking I would agree with you, but as the agency has approached me with an opportunity that was originally within IR35, would a letter of engagement (between the agency and the client as well as agency and myself) get around this issue?
Leave a comment:
- 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: