Separate contract for handover?

[WordIsBond]

1. Help them structure a contract and working practices that give an outside determination using CEST.
2. Advise that if they want greater protection even than that, you believe QDOS offers insurance. Perhaps contact QDOS to be sure of this.
3. Tell them you are happy for them to take the gain from cutting out the middle-men if you have a direct outside contract with them.
4. Profit.

edit: Also, the worst that happens later is that they get scared and change you to inside after a few months, at which point you say, 'Sorry, not what we agreed' and walk.

[zerosum]

Plot twist: the end-client now want me to stay another two months, April and May, and possibly beyond if I bid competitively on a future related project.

They know how to spell IR35, but haven't gone much beyond that.

They’re fairly desperate. The PM told me would be happier to deal with me directly and would have no problem creating a new contract with a company I've been thinking of setting up abroad (at the same time as shifting tax residency) -- the entire gig is work from home. However, this option is unlikely to be ready in time.

More realistically:
The contract chain (my ltd->agency->consultancy->end-client) will probably get rearranged. The consultancy and possibly agency may get paid off by the end-client.

I could say to the end-client or whoever (once the above is decided) I will only stay if this role is determined as outside (but please don’t tell me until 1st April, as I’m contracted until then ) The end-client is probably desperate enough to go for that, but once the immediate urgency has gone nothing stops them reviewing it with a calmer (more risk-averse) head and changing determination, right? Working practises and so on are extremely solid, but I doubt they want any spectre of the PAYE liability.

[WordIsBond]

It's always good to get money sooner anyway.

[ladymuck]

I had read about this. But I'm struggling to reconcile it with the fact, discussed in various threads, that HMRC will probably make their unofficial 'low-hanging fruit ranking' by comparing March and April agency reports.

The two are technically different but I understand your lack of trust

[zerosum]

You know the rules on this have changed? Doesn't matter when you get paid now as long as the work was done before April.

I had read about this. But I'm struggling to reconcile it with the fact, discussed in various threads, that HMRC will probably make their unofficial 'low-hanging fruit ranking' by comparing March and April agency reports.

[northernladuk]

Commit to ensuring final payment reaches me by latest 1st April

You know the rules on this have changed? Doesn't matter when you get paid now as long as the work was done before April.

[zerosum]

You could, but I probably wouldn't bother. You could, I suppose, before agreeing ask client to confirm that no SDS will be done and notify the others, due to the contract ending before April.

I’ll chuck it back in the agency’s court.

‘Please certify on the extension schedule that no status determination has been done or is planned because the contract is ending before April, and let the other parties know of this

Or

Commit to ensuring final payment reaches me by latest 1st April

Whichever you prefer.’

That covers it without asking for an explicit yes-no.


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[WordIsBond]

You could, but I probably wouldn't bother. You could, I suppose, before agreeing ask client to confirm that no SDS will be done and notify the others, due to the contract ending before April.

[zerosum]

Is there any value to asking the agency whether they or any of the parties in the contract chain (there are another two) have done an SD(S) or even preparatory steps into determining the IR35 status of the contract, or spelling out contractually that they need to tell me if this happens?

I'm minded to think that it's just asking for trouble, indeed, asking for an excuse, perhaps, to be unable to sign the extension...on the other hand now is exactly the time to be making demands.

[LondonManc]

Always separate, unless the handover is one of the deliverables of the original contract. Working practices, though, can vary considerably when switching from delivery to handover - documentation can be done from anywhere at any time of day, for example.

[WordIsBond]

It is definitely good to have a new contract. That helps demonstrate lack of SDC, they couldn't move you to this new task without a new contract. That's a win for both the new contract and your previous one.

Contra NLUK, you do not need a determination statement, and they probably don't want to do one for a mere one month. The work will be completed before 6 April and so will be outside the scope of the new rules. You will only need that if they want to extend you again.

I would set the payment date for this new one-month contract as 1 April. Get it done and dusted. The excuse is that since the legislation still hasn't been implemented, that ensures that whether it is based on work date or payment date you and they are in the clear. That's the excuse. The real reason is so you get your money quickly.

edit: Since you are doing a different task that wasn't in the original contract, you do NOT want the role details to be the same. You would then be doing work not specified in the contract, and that would generate significant risk if it came out in an investigation. I understand the idea but it wasn't well thought through.

[zerosum]

In fact. If you could keep the role details the same, tap them up for an outside then all your outside history is secured as well taking another worry off the table.

Good plan!

[northernladuk]

You need a determination before you start. If they are willing to give you an outside one then you are golden. Nothing else to worry about.

If it's just a month then the risk on them is insignificant to say the least so shouldnt be any barriers to an outside determination.

In fact. If you could keep the role details the same, tap them up for an outside then all your outside history is secured as well taking another worry off the table.

[zerosum]

Contract was set to run until the end of this month. Work on the system is largely complete bar a few fixes.

However, they now want me to stay another month, rewrite and plump out the documentation (argh), and do a handover to some internal person who will maintain the system.

Actually they are happy to do a new contract covering just the handover, recognising that it's not of a piece with what went before.

Per the recent HMRC announcement that "Changes to the operation of the off-payroll working rules will only apply to payments made for services provided on or after 6 April 2020", this seems OK.

Anyone been in a similar boat, anything to consider? These impending changes are making me second-guess more than usual.