Reply to: PwC's newest cash cow - IR35

[edison]

This^

In 30 years of contracting, I've worked for PWC twice. The third time I had to turn them down, as they had started to phrase their contracts to make it perfectly clear that you were inside IR35. I had numerous contacts within PWC who attempted to get the contract changed following review, all to no avail; agent informed me that PWC simply will not change a single word. And if that's how they see liability for themselves, I'm sure they see it pretty much the same way if - and it's a big "if" - they are actually taking on blanket responsibility and liability for clients they represent such as the one on this thread.

Let's be honest here, we contractors are in direct competition with their own "consultants" in many cases, so they are not exactly going to bend over backwards to assist us in any way whatsoever. They'll be loving every minute of this new found path to riches.

Yep, this.

PWC are possibly not the worst offender, but the Big 4 have a string of scandals with their audit operations advising end clients. I'm not sure they really have any competence to be auditing anything with IR35...

'Decline in quality': auditors face scrutiny over string of scandals | Business | The Guardian

[mb31]

Sounds like they were just taking the p*ss

They're wasting their time. If I need an extra performance boost then I'll get Team Mb to prescribe me something for my bipolar or asthma.

LetterBox, sorry, I didn't expect my drugs test post to get so many responses but it was sort of relevant at the beginning when we were discussing the language clients and third parties use to describe contracting.

Back on topic...

[Snooky]

I genuinely had my urine tested for cocaine yesterday ahead of my forthcoming contracting job and they asked for the name of my line manager.

Sounds like they were just taking the p*ss

[BABABlackSheep]

Same here. Result came back negative. Now my dealer has a lot to explain.

Mine would too. If alcohol then 38% proof.

[nomadd]

On the surface that seems like a sound plan. However, that's not the reality. A large business will not care where I am on the WP scale, genuine freelance or permie-tractor or anything in between. Right now they see a big risk for them (maybe not in a year or 2, but as of now, they consider the risk too great). If they have passed the liability in some way to PwC then PwC have absolutely no interest in placing people outside. If they have not passed the liability then the MSP have no interest in placing people outside either. There are exceptions of course, but I'd be amazed on whichever side, had not factored a 90% figure in. QDOS don't need to explain to them the risk of losing valuable services, the correct WP to ensure they can carry on using these external PSCs etc, they do not care about any of this, what they need to know is the cost of the risk of keeping a PSC versus the value they provide in delivering. Hell, they'd even keep on a 1st line helpdesk data entry permie-tractor if they equated that same body to securing a million pound contract. Banks just canned PSCs, an MSP is even more contractor heavy IMO but without them, they don't have much of a business. Certainly going to be an interesting start to 2020.

This^

In 30 years of contracting, I've worked for PWC twice. The third time I had to turn them down, as they had started to phrase their contracts to make it perfectly clear that you were inside IR35. I had numerous contacts within PWC who attempted to get the contract changed following review, all to no avail; agent informed me that PWC simply will not change a single word. And if that's how they see liability for themselves, I'm sure they see it pretty much the same way if - and it's a big "if" - they are actually taking on blanket responsibility and liability for clients they represent such as the one on this thread.

Let's be honest here, we contractors are in direct competition with their own "consultants" in many cases, so they are not exactly going to bend over backwards to assist us in any way whatsoever. They'll be loving every minute of this new found path to riches.

[LetterBox]

Contact QDOS asap would be my advice. I'm sure they'd be interested to know about it and no doubt to assist you in getting the correct outcome in line with their previous assessment.

On the surface that seems like a sound plan. However, that's not the reality. A large business will not care where I am on the WP scale, genuine freelance or permie-tractor or anything in between. Right now they see a big risk for them (maybe not in a year or 2, but as of now, they consider the risk too great). If they have passed the liability in some way to PwC then PwC have absolutely no interest in placing people outside. If they have not passed the liability then the MSP have no interest in placing people outside either. There are exceptions of course, but I'd be amazed on whichever side, had not factored a 90% figure in. QDOS don't need to explain to them the risk of losing valuable services, the correct WP to ensure they can carry on using these external PSCs etc, they do not care about any of this, what they need to know is the cost of the risk of keeping a PSC versus the value they provide in delivering. Hell, they'd even keep on a 1st line helpdesk data entry permie-tractor if they equated that same body to securing a million pound contract. Banks just canned PSCs, an MSP is even more contractor heavy IMO but without them, they don't have much of a business. Certainly going to be an interesting start to 2020.

[LondonManc]

We all received the same generic email, it does not excuse the term "line manager" in the email, for which PwC should know better, but clearly someone has hit a button to initiate this piece of work.

Confusion abound, however, QDOS have approved my contract and WP, I have adhered to my own WP to IMO stay strongly outside. I have explained to the programme manager and project sponsor regarding CEST, QDOS and WP as best I can. I will essentially re-create the business case the MSP initiated for my services in the first place and screen grab all answers provided in the questionnaire to then pass to those who are likely to be questioned about it, whilst making my services as isolated as possible. These hoops should not be jumped through really, but if my business has the opportunity to press the case then I'll need to ensure it's as good as it can be.

There is a definite possibility this may just be a box ticking exercise for PwC, and regardless of what I state or what the business area defines, it may already be written (especially if PwC are on the hook for incorrect determinations). Can't help but think HMRC will come after any business if said business does not come back with a 90% inside ratio after large determination works, regardless of facts.

If PwC has not rigged it, but the business admit they need some scape goat areas, then that's ok. It'll give me the opportunity to negotiate an outside determination with an agreement to leave in March when my contract is due for renewal.

Contact QDOS asap would be my advice. I'm sure they'd be interested to know about it and no doubt to assist you in getting the correct outcome in line with their previous assessment.

[LetterBox]

We all received the same generic email, it does not excuse the term "line manager" in the email, for which PwC should know better, but clearly someone has hit a button to initiate this piece of work.

Confusion abound, however, QDOS have approved my contract and WP, I have adhered to my own WP to IMO stay strongly outside. I have explained to the programme manager and project sponsor regarding CEST, QDOS and WP as best I can. I will essentially re-create the business case the MSP initiated for my services in the first place and screen grab all answers provided in the questionnaire to then pass to those who are likely to be questioned about it, whilst making my services as isolated as possible. These hoops should not be jumped through really, but if my business has the opportunity to press the case then I'll need to ensure it's as good as it can be.

There is a definite possibility this may just be a box ticking exercise for PwC, and regardless of what I state or what the business area defines, it may already be written (especially if PwC are on the hook for incorrect determinations). Can't help but think HMRC will come after any business if said business does not come back with a 90% inside ratio after large determination works, regardless of facts.

If PwC has not rigged it, but the business admit they need some scape goat areas, then that's ok. It'll give me the opportunity to negotiate an outside determination with an agreement to leave in March when my contract is due for renewal.

[malvolio]

Having a chat with your hiring manager about it will help, especially if they want to keep you past March.

Yes, totally agree. Client on side is your best weapon. Just don't mention taxation, focus on expenses and pensions...

As for PwC, regardless of what they may think, the three tests still stand in law, so genuine RoS, irreducible MoO and minimal or zero D&C are still the only relevant parameters.

[mb31]

Same here. Result came back negative. Now my dealer has a lot to explain.

Did you hear about the Pepsi lorry driver who got sacked because he tested positive for Coke?

[LondonManc]

malvolio

I know I'm comparing apples with bananas but third party assessors who provide input to the DWP on benefits such as PIP work to a point scoring formula and if you understand how to nail each category then you're on to a winner. It's also the reason why a lot of severely disabled people do not claim successfully. They simply turn up to an interview and waffle on about their disability without doing any research.

I know we won't get asked for an interview but if I can at least understand the inputs to the process then I can second guess what evidence needs to be provided and do some legwork for the client.

Having a chat with your hiring manager about it will help, especially if they want to keep you past March.

[pscont]

I genuinely had my urine tested for cocaine yesterday ....

Same here. Result came back negative. Now my dealer has a lot to explain.

[LadyPenelope]

Don't think anybody is panicking over a drug test. I understand the need for it in some industries but otherwise there is no need for a client to be interested in one's recreational activities.

Yes, that was my take on it too. As long as someone can turn up on time and do their job, it's no-one's business what they do in their spare time.

[simes]

It makes perfect sense. The client co has the assurance that a big 4 firm has made the assessment. PWC avoid any liability by ruling everyone inside. The contractor gets shafted. Trebles all round.

It must give a fluffy feeling to the client, knowing he's spent oodles of £000's on an assured and qualified beyond all doubt PWC assessment.

But if it has been demonstrated that the HMRC does not understand that which it has authored, I am wondering if PWC are taking their 'expertise' from court case based outcomes as opposed to whatever minimal waffle HMRC are purporting...?

[mb31]

malvolio

I know I'm comparing apples with bananas but third party assessors who provide input to the DWP on benefits such as PIP work to a point scoring formula and if you understand how to nail each category then you're on to a winner. It's also the reason why a lot of severely disabled people do not claim successfully. They simply turn up to an interview and waffle on about their disability without doing any research.

I know we won't get asked for an interview but if I can at least understand the inputs to the process then I can second guess what evidence needs to be provided and do some legwork for the client.