Reply to: Asking Agency for visibility of end-client contract?

[cojak]

I think that this thread has gone as far as it can. Thread closed.

[billybiro]

Can you provide a link to any tribunal where the IR35 status has hinged on whether there was a name on a contract?



Can you provide a link to any tribunal where HMRC have one by proving that a lack of substitution on its own meant an IR35 win?

Ta

No, but let's flip it round.

Can you provide a link to any tribunal where the contractor had their personal name on a contract that also lacked a right of substitution and HMRC lost the IR35 case?

[billybiro]

And that's usually the time you send them a nice letter on headed notepaper saying please contact IPSE as they deal with all matters IR35.

And they know they are in for a fight should they want one.

This is what I pay my IPSE+ for.

qh

And they also know it may well be a fight worth having since the very fact you're hiding behind IPSE in response to what HMRC will see as merely a friendly inquiry means you've probably got something to hide.

[quackhandle]

Don't forget, an IR35 investigation could start with an innocent "we just want to check your VAT returns" and then it escalates into something very different.

And that's usually the time you send them a nice letter on headed notepaper saying please contact IPSE as they deal with all matters IR35.

And they know they are in for a fight should they want one.

This is what I pay my IPSE+ for.

qh

[Spikeh]

The fact you've had 100's of clients over the last 20 years isn't directly relevant as HMRC can and do investigate on a case-by-case, contract-by-contract basis. So you're as likely to be investigated and as potentially liable if you're a brand new contractor with your first client & contract or if you've been the in game for many years.

Yes, I did read my own links. Obviously, there are outliers and each investigation is done on it's own merits but it's clearly fair to say that, on average, an investigation into a person/one-man-band Ltd. takes considerably less time than an investigation into a large corporate entity.

Not sure who's replies you're reading billy. I didn't say the number of clients I've had has anything to do with the likelihood of an investigation. In fact, my reply directly addresses your factoid about "case-by-case"; I have had many clients, therefore an investigation would take a lot longer than someone who is new to contracting, or who has had a smaller number of engagements.

You're going well off topic now, and preaching to a choir singing off the same hymn sheet - albeit a slightly more positive one.

[ladymuck]

Don't forget, an IR35 investigation could start with an innocent "we just want to check your VAT returns" and then it escalates into something very different.

[Lance]

Are you sure they take years? That may well be the case for large companies who have complex accounting/taxation affairs but it's certainly not the case for the individual or the one-man-band companies.

Aren’t the ones that end in months ended when HMRC give it up as not worth pursuing?

The ones they do pursue do take an awful long time as it’s complex.

[billybiro]

Well no, of course I'm not. I've never experienced one and don't tend to read up on every case that's publicised. I'm sure that the length is fairly short for contractors who have only had a few clients (the majority?) but for someone like me - who's worked with over 100 clients over 20 years - an investigation would take much longer.

Also, did you read your own links?

The fact you've had 100's of clients over the last 20 years isn't directly relevant as HMRC can and do investigate on a case-by-case, contract-by-contract basis. So you're as likely to be investigated and as potentially liable if you're a brand new contractor with your first client & contract or if you've been the in game for many years.

Yes, I did read my own links. Obviously, there are outliers and each investigation is done on it's own merits but it's clearly fair to say that, on average, an investigation into a person/one-man-band Ltd. takes considerably less time than an investigation into a large corporate entity.

[TheFaQQer]

Does your personal name appear anywhere on the contract between YourCo and [other party] (other than as signatory for YourCo)?
If so, you're a disguised employee.

Can you provide a link to any tribunal where the IR35 status has hinged on whether there was a name on a contract?

Do you have a genuine right of substitution (i.e. not one where the client can simply refuse a substitute for any reason they please)?
If not, you're a disguised employee.

Can you provide a link to any tribunal where HMRC have one by proving that a lack of substitution on its own meant an IR35 win?

Ta

[TheFaQQer]

Are you sure they take years? That may well be the case for large companies who have complex accounting/taxation affairs but it's certainly not the case for the individual or the one-man-band companies.

That second link doesn't mention anything about small businesses and how long it takes to complete an investigation.

The average is possibly correct - some HMRC investigations can be shut down very, very quickly (possibly even from the first response), whereas very few IR35 investigations will end after a couple of months.

[Spikeh]

Are you sure they take years? That may well be the case for large companies who have complex accounting/taxation affairs but it's certainly not the case for the individual or the one-man-band companies.

Well no, of course I'm not. I've never experienced one and don't tend to read up on every case that's publicised. I'm sure that the length is fairly short for contractors who have only had a few clients (the majority?) but for someone like me - who's worked with over 100 clients over 20 years - an investigation would take much longer.

Also, did you read your own links?

The tax investigations firm cautioned that while three months has become the average duration of a HMRC enquiry, many take much longer and can even stretch into years.

[billybiro]

If it was that clean-cut, HMRC investigations wouldn't take years to complete. Neither of those points are cut and dry proof that you are a disguised employee, but I'm not about to get into a debate about it as we'll be here all day

Are you sure they take years? That may well be the case for large companies who have complex accounting/taxation affairs but it's certainly not the case for the individual or the one-man-band companies.

[Spikeh]

And you do right to ignore that particular post.

Bearing in mind a vast number of contractors don't even know what they are and if they are really are employed or not I wouldn't expect agents to understand so would just disregard whatever they say. As long as your contract and all the other stuff we talk about is in order then their misguided view on what we are or aren't won't matter one jot.

Indeed. Been a contractor for over 10 years now (with a good portion of that focusing on freelance engagements rather than the traditional agency route). Been there, done that - spend more time than most people probably do making sure both paperwork, projects and relationships are as clean-cut as possible.

I come across an uncanny number of the aforementioned permtractors - tend to let them get on with it.

[northernladuk]

If it was that clean-cut, HMRC investigations wouldn't take years to complete. Neither of those points are cut and dry proof that you are a disguised employee, but I'm not about to get into a debate about it as we'll be here all day

And you do right to ignore that particular post.

Bearing in mind a vast number of contractors don't even know what they are and if they are really are employed or not I wouldn't expect agents to understand so would just disregard whatever they say. As long as your contract and all the other stuff we talk about is in order then their misguided view on what we are or aren't won't matter one jot.

[Spikeh]

And they would probably be 100% correct.

Here's the clues:
Does your personal name appear anywhere on the contract between YourCo and [other party] (other than as signatory for YourCo)?
If so, you're a disguised employee.

Do you have a genuine right of substitution (i.e. not one where the client can simply refuse a substitute for any reason they please)?
If not, you're a disguised employee.

If it was that clean-cut, HMRC investigations wouldn't take years to complete. Neither of those points are cut and dry proof that you are a disguised employee, but I'm not about to get into a debate about it as we'll be here all day