Originally posted by Andy Hallett
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Contract + CEST
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Contract + CEST"
Collapse
-
If the client decides it, the fee payer pays it and you have not lied about your working practices then you are technically safe as houses.
Leave a comment:
-
All seems perfectly reasonable to me. More than is strictly necessary, but no harm in that.Originally posted by DigitalUser View PostThat was my view as well. Whilst the risk is within the supply chain, I also want to make sure I'm not exposing them to unnecessary risk. The suggestion of documenting working practices is useful so I'll take that on board, thanks.
R.E. whether the input was accurate - reasonable to call this out. My approach to this would be to run a new determination post-April 6th (i.e. mid-contract) so that there is documented evidence that working practices are as suggested prior to the engagement starting.
Leave a comment:
-
That was my view as well. Whilst the risk is within the supply chain, I also want to make sure I'm not exposing them to unnecessary risk. The suggestion of documenting working practices is useful so I'll take that on board, thanks.Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostYou don't really care in the sense that the supply chain above YourCo carries the liability. If you were asked to provide input to complete the CEST, then you should record any evidence that supports that input. Beyond that, the most you could do would be to record evidence of your WP as the contract continues but, again, the liability rests with the supply chain above YourCo from April 6.
( Whether HMRC actually accepts a completed CEST in future is anyone's guess, but not if it suits them, as they only accept it conditionally upon their view that the input was accurate. )
R.E. whether the input was accurate - reasonable to call this out. My approach to this would be to run a new determination post-April 6th (i.e. mid-contract) so that there is documented evidence that working practices are as suggested prior to the engagement starting.
Leave a comment:
-
You don't really care in the sense that the supply chain above YourCo carries the liability. If you were asked to provide input to complete the CEST, then you should record any evidence that supports that input. Beyond that, the most you could do would be to record evidence of your WP as the contract continues but, again, the liability rests with the supply chain above YourCo from April 6.Originally posted by DigitalUser View PostI've been fortunate enough to secure a progressive client and (hopefully) engage with them on an outside-IR35 basis. The determination from the CEST tool states that off-payroll working rules do not apply (the work is not subject to control and the inputs are genuine and not contrived) - aside from this and a contract, is anyone aware of what else may be required to satisfy HMRC in the event of a future enquiry?
( Whether HMRC actually accepts a completed CEST in future is anyone's guess, but not if it suits them, as they only accept it conditionally upon their view that the input was accurate. )
Leave a comment:
-
Contract + CEST
I've been fortunate enough to secure a progressive client and (hopefully) engage with them on an outside-IR35 basis. The determination from the CEST tool states that off-payroll working rules do not apply (the work is not subject to control and the inputs are genuine and not contrived) - aside from this and a contract, is anyone aware of what else may be required to satisfy HMRC in the event of a future enquiry?Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Today 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Yesterday 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55
- JSL rules ‘are HMRC’s way to make contractor umbrella company clients give a sh*t where their money goes’ Feb 8 07:42
- Contractors warned over HMRC charging £3.5 billion too much Feb 6 03:18
- Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for umbrella company contractors: an April 2026 explainer Feb 5 07:19
- IR35: IT contractors ‘most concerned about off-payroll working rules’ Feb 4 07:11
- Labour’s near-silence on its employment status shakeup is telling, and disappointing Feb 3 07:47
- Business expenses: What IT contractors can and cannot claim from HMRC Jan 30 08:44

Leave a comment: