Originally posted by Henrik67
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 Help - IR35
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 Help - IR35"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostI did, I still do, and that's not what I said above.
You made it clear the purpose of the clause is a box tick exercise when I told you to do a assessment of your options against realistic scenarios when you would expect to use the clauses.
Decide your attitude to risk and proceed accordingly. There's not much anyone else can tell you. You are running a company not a school tuck shop.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostI did, I still do, and that's not what I said above.
You made it clear the purpose of the clause is a box tick exercise when I told you to do a assessment of your options against realistic scenarios when you would expect to use the clauses.
Decide your attitude to risk and proceed accordingly. There's not much anyone else can tell you. You are running a company not a school tuck shop.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Henrik67 View PostI thought you agreed with the guy earlier that it was a good point to include it? Who knows if I will use it - never say never...
Thanks
You made it clear the purpose of the clause is a box tick exercise when I told you to do a assessment of your options against realistic scenarios when you would expect to use the clauses.
Decide your attitude to risk and proceed accordingly. There's not much anyone else can tell you. You are running a company not a school tuck shop.
Leave a comment:
-
I would not even get a IR35 review, more chance of being hit by lightning than getting investigated in next few years
Depends on your risk approach
Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostThe tax man will want to know the likelihood of the claused being used. That is zero by the sounds of it, making me wonder the point of its inclusion if it bears no resemblance to the actual working practices and looks every bit like you're engineering the contract to force an outside assessment.
Thanks
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Henrik67 View PostI am just looking for the option that the tax man would hate the least!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Henrik67 View PostThanks, I thought perhaps having a financial restriction was worse than not having a subs clause but I get your point. QDOS seem to think it is as bad as not having a clean right to SUB.
Leave a comment:
-
Now they have offered to change clause to days
They have come back and offered to change the clause to advance notice of 35 days - not sure if this is better or worse ?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostCould you post more rubbish in a single paragraph..
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostSo if I understand correctly, the agency doesn't want you to have substitution, but will accept it if there's a penalty.
So why not just accept it with the penalty? That's actually a reasonable request by a client -- yeah, you can send someone else, but we have to security clear him / teach him our protocols / etc. So put it in the contract, then never use the right. You never have to pay the penalty, you never substitute, but the right is there, so you're iron-clad on substitution.
In fact, that makes it look much less like a sham agreement. This is a substitution clause that obviously had some thought put into it.
A contract paid in euros through a Polish agency for a US company is probably not likely to come under HMRC scrutiny anyway. But I don't see the problem with just putting the clause in the contract and never using it.
Leave a comment:
- 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
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: