Reply to: IR35 appeal success

[cojak]

While I welcome this decision, in some ways I am dismayed also by this. While I have endeavoured to act and look different to BOS contractors, sometimes to my financial detriment, I may have been wasting my time as the bar is now so low.

Not wasted in my book. If you follow your own rules HMRC ought to go after those contractors whose evidence is weaker.

He might have won but it was only after the stress of going through the fight.

I used to do the London, Leeds, Bristol, Newbury tour for my contracts and I didn’t regret it. Don’t look at your decision through their rules.

[HugeWhale]

While I welcome this decision, in some ways I am dismayed also by this. While I have endeavoured to act and look different to BOS contractors, sometimes to my financial detriment, I may have been wasting my time as the bar is now so low.

[SueEllen]

Not as the crow flies - but that's how HMRC work it...

The easiest test is would you travel to the same main-line station to get to a different workplace. HMRC will accept that as a "different journey" I'm told.

Doesn't really work in and around London unless it really is the Square Mile as you can start at the same station e.g. Watford Junction but take different routes to end up at destinations a mile away e.g. Angel and Farringdon.

[Batcher]

4 miles? :

Over 4 miles Client B wasn't within a square mile of Client A which was my argument against their ruling. My theory was that Client B had opened a new head office near Client A and they used that to say it was within. I had only ever been there once for a 1 hour meeting.

Anyway, 1 was north and the other south so different routes as well but they said general direction of travel.

[malvolio]

4 miles? :

Not as the crow flies - but that's how HMRC work it...

The easiest test is would you travel to the same main-line station to get to a different workplace. HMRC will accept that as a "different journey" I'm told.

[northernladuk]

4 miles? :

[Batcher]

They knew IPSE would be happy to take them all the way to prove they were wrong on a technicality.

BTW The square mile is really walking distance unless you have a mobility problems as it is just over a mile.https://londonist.com/2016/07/is-the...-a-square-mile However going to other travel zones in London, and subsequently other places/suburbs in cities/large towns, really isn't.

Yes, it was the fact PCG got involved that stopped HMRC in their tracks. They knew they wouldn't win so quietly dropped it. After hearing nil for 6 months and I hadn't paid any of the £52k to them, we wrote to them and said due to the time lapse we were now considering the matter closed. That's when they wrote the final letter to me.

My argument over the square mile rule was exactly that - driving from client A to Client B was just over 4 miles so wasn't within a square mile. That's when they came up with the direction of travel argument. Driving from my office to client A and then in my next contract from my office to client B was in the same general direction.

[SueEllen]

It didn't go to court though. My next step was to take it to the commissioners but that was going to cost me £7,500 - £10,000. QDOS said the insurance wouldn't cover it due to the low chance of success.

PCG got involved, wrote one letter and HMRC dropped it. Sent me a snippy letter with the paraphrase above.

I was surprised that, although they dropped the initial claim, they didn't chase me for the 24 month rule etc., to at least recover something. I was prepared to pay back expenses claimed or BIK but the whole thing was dropped.

They knew IPSE would be happy to take them all the way to prove they were wrong on a technicality.

BTW The square mile is really walking distance unless you have a mobility problems as it is just over a mile.https://londonist.com/2016/07/is-the...-a-square-mile However going to other travel zones in London, and subsequently other places/suburbs in cities/large towns, really isn't.

[Batcher]

Interesting. So we have case law on London expenses then. That will save a lot of further arguing about it.

Thanks for that.

It didn't go to court though. My next step was to take it to the commissioners but that was going to cost me £7,500 - £10,000. QDOS said the insurance wouldn't cover it due to the low chance of success.

PCG got involved, wrote one letter and HMRC dropped it. Sent me a snippy letter with the paraphrase above.

I was surprised that, although they dropped the initial claim, they didn't chase me for the 24 month rule etc., to at least recover something. I was prepared to pay back expenses claimed or BIK but the whole thing was dropped.

[northernladuk]

They said I was guilty as charged but on this occasion wouldn't be looking for the money (paraphrased)

Interesting. So we have case law on London expenses then. That will save a lot of further arguing about it.

Thanks for that.

[Batcher]

And what was the outcome of that. I would have also stated 3 months wasn't enough but it can't be proved via the 40% rolling and the square mile has always been a matter for debate.

They said I was guilty as charged but on this occasion wouldn't be looking for the money (paraphrased)

[northernladuk]

No, it initially covered 1 contract then 3 in total. Part of their argument was the 24 month rule for travel. I had a 3 month break between 2 contracts in different parts of a city and they said the square mile rule should still apply. I argued that there was enough of a break and that there was sufficient distance between clients that the square mile rule didn't apply but they then came up with the direction of travel argument.

And what was the outcome of that. I would have also stated 3 months wasn't enough but it can't be proved via the 40% rolling and the square mile has always been a matter for debate.

[northernladuk]

https://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/ho..._overview.html

Fair play he represented himself.

Not really. You wouldn't say that if he'd lost.

[Batcher]

Did you have to pay it all in the end?

No, IPSE (PCG at the time) scared the bad man away

[Batcher]

This is only one contract isn't it? 6 years or more only matters if you were on that contract that long. If you weren't there that long then the length of time they can go back is irrelevant.

No, it initially covered 1 contract then 3 in total. Part of their argument was the 24 month rule for travel. I had a 3 month break between 2 contracts in different parts of a city and they said the square mile rule should still apply. I argued that there was enough of a break and that there was sufficient distance between clients that the square mile rule didn't apply but they then came up with the direction of travel argument.