Reply to: Contracts longer than 2 years, tax etc

[northernladuk]

Most don't even know about 24 month expense rule.

And many of those that do opted out of it....

[coolhandluke]

I know a few "contractors" on 10+ years on a single contract. It's a rare event to meet a contractor who is aware of IR35. Most don't even know about 24 month expense rule.

[SueEllen]

Some companies try to only keep contractors on for a max of 2 or 3 years. It's actually policy. Once a contractor gets close to that they will end that contract even if more work is there.

Public sector bodies can get in trouble from their unions (and so can larger clients that recognise a union,) if they have contractors for years and don't look for a permanent person to take their role.

[gables]

Happened to me two gigs ago and if I can last it will happen on this one as well. Very frustrating, particularly if the client is very contractor heavy. Their entire knowledge walks out the door every 2 years.

Scottish Government are similar, contract limited to 23 months with no return for 6 months

[northernladuk]

Some companies try to only keep contractors on for a max of 2 or 3 years. It's actually policy. Once a contractor gets close to that they will end that contract even if more work is there.

Happened to me two gigs ago and if I can last it will happen on this one as well. Very frustrating, particularly if the client is very contractor heavy. Their entire knowledge walks out the door every 2 years.

[l35kee]

Some companies try to only keep contractors on for a max of 2 or 3 years. It's actually policy. Once a contractor gets close to that they will end that contract even if more work is there.

[washed up contractor]

Agents talk bulltulip all the time. First rule of contract is do not believe anything they say except interview time, date, location and 'you've got the job'!

As has been said, the longer you are at one client, the chances are you become more part and parcel of their organisation. Ergo, HMRC will look to exploit this to show you are a disguised employee.

On one of my last contracts, I worked with 2 guys who had been contracting with the client one, for 10 years, the other 7+ years. They both had allocated parking spaces which employees normally were entitled to. Neither saw this as an indicator to being part and parcel. They both left after I left. One had a short contract away but has gone back to the same client and has been back 2 years.

He's a youngish guy and it has brought him a comfy lifestyle. He also 'claimed' travel expenses every year(!) but, deary me, I think it is only ignorance of IR35 that enables him to sleep at night.

Working from home will not be affected by the 2 year travel expenses rule.

[WordIsBond]

But only in the context that the worker has allowed themselves to be allocated work not in their original contract schedule, thus moving them from being a supplier to being someone who can be told what to work on. D&C write large.

You would think, after 18 years, people would begin to understand this kind of detail, wouldn't you...

Actually, no, the statement NLUK quoted from the judgment was not in that particular context.

[psychocandy]

Pandacat - Not being funny you've been contracting two years (at least) and haven't found this out for yourself. Worse still you've asked the agent and believed what they said (which as you can see generally turns out to be either complete bollacks).

But as others have said 24 month rule expenses is the main one.

And no leaving for one month makes no difference. Where on earth did agent get that idea from?

[PandaCat]

Thanks guys! Really helpful replies
*Fingers crossed* I get to stay longer. I don't think I could ever claim for my commute from Bedroom via Bathroom and Kitchen to Study even with all the hold ups in between. So that's not going to be an issue.

I shall enjoy reading the other threads on this forum and picking up lots of tips!
Thanks!

[malvolio]

Which bit?

I can see why length of time 'can' be a factor in IR35 cases. A vast majority of people I know that are 5 years in to a gig are so part and parcel it's not true.

HMRC do see length as an issue as it's specifically mentioned in the notes from the recent appeal win.

But only in the context that the worker has allowed themselves to be allocated work not in their original contract schedule, thus moving them from being a supplier to being someone who can be told what to work on. D&C write large.

You would think, after 18 years, people would begin to understand this kind of detail, wouldn't you...

[northernladuk]

Sorry this is just wrong

Which bit?

I can see why length of time 'can' be a factor in IR35 cases. A vast majority of people I know that are 5 years in to a gig are so part and parcel it's not true.

HMRC do see length as an issue as it's specifically mentioned in the notes from the recent appeal win.

Length of engagement

61. HMRC do not ascribe any particular significance to this factor save that longer contracts tend to indicate employment and this contract was open ended.

[tarbera]

HMRC will probably tend to assume you are inside IR35 if you are in the same contract too long. Case law isn't on their side but I'd guess if investigated they might push you harder than they might the next guy.

.

Sorry this is just wrong

[PurpleGorilla]

I’m working with folk who have been ‘contracting’ at the same client for five+ years.

[WordIsBond]

HMRC will probably tend to assume you are inside IR35 if you are in the same contract too long. Case law isn't on their side but I'd guess if investigated they might push you harder than they might the next guy.

Too long in the same contract could mean your contacts get stale and make it harder to get contracts later.

All that said, if the money's good and you like the work, keep invoicing.