• 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!
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.

Previously on "Time for MVL or not and IR35"

Collapse

  • Peejay
    replied
    Originally posted by quantum77 View Post

    Out of interest, which company is the insurance with? PCG/IPSE?
    It's QDOS

    Leave a comment:


  • quantum77
    replied
    Originally posted by Peejay View Post
    Given that I'm paying around £200/yr for IR35 insurance
    Out of interest, which company is the insurance with? PCG/IPSE?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by mogga71 View Post

    But that is obviously ignoring the fact that the Banks made blanket assessments that from April 5 2020 all contractors were now inside ir35 ... regardless of whether they were actually really inside or not. That surely has no bearing on what the circumstances were before that? It's not as if the Banks reviewed each contract.
    That is NOT a fact. Many banks simply stopped engaging Ltd company contractors.

    Which ones "made blanket assessments that from April 5 2020 all contractors were now inside ir35"?

    Leave a comment:


  • dsc
    replied
    Originally posted by mogga71 View Post

    But that is obviously ignoring the fact that the Banks made blanket assessments that from April 5 2020 all contractors were now inside ir35 ... regardless of whether they were actually really inside or not. That surely has no bearing on what the circumstances were before that? It's not as if the Banks reviewed each contract.

    So what? You are then still on HMRC's radar and they don't care if you were truly outside, they will assume inside all along and open up a case. I think you have them confused with a body that gives a toss, they want money from taxes and they will bully you into paying unless you defend yourself or have insurance / representation that will step in to do so, at that point they normally give up and move on to someone who's an easier target.

    The whole idea is to avoid being on HMRC's radar altogether and to not have to go through the hassle of defending yourself / having to prove innocence.

    Leave a comment:


  • mogga71
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    HMRC will have a list of all contractors outside. They ask the client for a list of all contractors with inside determinations (i.e. the letter, bad wording sorry). HMRC compares them and ends up with a list of all contractors that have been incorrectly paying tax.
    But that is obviously ignoring the fact that the Banks made blanket assessments that from April 5 2020 all contractors were now inside ir35 ... regardless of whether they were actually really inside or not. That surely has no bearing on what the circumstances were before that? It's not as if the Banks reviewed each contract.


    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by agentzero View Post

    This is incorrect. You can start up as many Limited Companies as you want but they cannot be in an identical or very similar business area. The interpretation of that is open. With due diligence it's fine, as long as you aren't contracting in IT within Project Management and then MVL, to then open another company with the intent and act of Project Management or acting as such, whether the job title matches or not, within 2 years.
    I don't think it is as open as you think. I'd imagine the SIC code is a starter for 10 and nearly all of us fall under the same one. Our skill base is pretty static as well. A wording change in a title isn't going to cut it. Infrastructure Project Manager or IT Constultant on an Infrastructure sound different but isn't going to fool anyone. We have a very specific skill base so trying to prove you are working in a different area is going to be difficult.

    Your last statement also clarifies his so agree but I don't agree the interpretation is open.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by mogga71 View Post

    Sorry, I may well have come across as being a bit flippant as you say.

    End of the day it's all about our opinions. I am probably too optimistic.

    One thing though ... what do you mean by this :

    'With outside to inside HMRC has a letter from the client saying sorry my contractor has been inside all along.'?
    HMRC will have a list of all contractors outside. They ask the client for a list of all contractors with inside determinations (i.e. the letter, bad wording sorry). HMRC compares them and ends up with a list of all contractors that have been incorrectly paying tax.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by agentzero View Post

    This is incorrect. You can start up as many Limited Companies as you want but they cannot be in an identical or very similar business area. The interpretation of that is open. With due diligence it's fine, as long as you aren't contracting in IT within Project Management and then MVL, to then open another company with the intent and act of Project Management or acting as such, whether the job title matches or not, within 2 years.
    so are you saying that of the two options....

    - MVL then startup a new LTD with a slightly different business area
    - startup a new LTD with a slightly different business area then MVL the older company

    the second reduces the risk of being caught by TAAR?
    That's what is sounds like you're saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • mogga71
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    But we've never been in a situation where the LTD was shut down BECAUSE of an inside determination. Completely different world now. If you could guess the real number of IR35 investigations and you were completely wrong would you stop taking you never hearing it happen as a yard stick. Many cases don't get to the public eye. You could be right but because you haven't heard of isn't much of guide.

    Also remember shutting down isn't an option for many as they may have to MVL which means the can't contract under a LTD for two years etc. Not everyone that has gone inside can or should shut their LTD.


    Maybe but that's a poor example. With outside to inside HMRC has a letter from the client saying sorry my contractor has been inside all along. It's a slam dunk (nearly). Throwing in fraudulent tax practices isn't that helpful. If people are gonna do that then bring it on HMRC.

    I think you are being far too flippant and are missing details. Bank weren't told to consider themselves inside they've banned the use of PSC's which is wholly different. No determination is made. There is a lot to consider. Ban of PSCs, blanket inside and role based determinations all have different problems and risks. There are plenty of gigs out there that have had a proper determination made and I don't see how you can argue a contractor in that situation has any defence. To lump all these in to one comment you don't think any are worthy of investigation is very misguided.



    Same as before. Not every company is doing this so why do you think they are safe? And that's only one situation out of many

    Common sense dictates it's free money for HMRC and now here is a massive black hole in the budget. You know, you actually might be right about them being safe in the long run but to be so flippant about the level of risk with a mountain of evidence against it I think is not a safe position. It's as head in the sand approach like many people have had about IR35 all along.

    Nothing might happen and you can come back in a few years and say I told you so but to be so flippant about it is wrong.
    Sorry, I may well have come across as being a bit flippant as you say.

    End of the day it's all about our opinions. I am probably too optimistic.

    One thing though ... what do you mean by this :

    'With outside to inside HMRC has a letter from the client saying sorry my contractor has been inside all along.'?
    Last edited by mogga71; 4 March 2021, 12:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • CompoundOverload
    replied
    Originally posted by mogga71 View Post


    Much more chance of being investigated if Company is still open and contractor has sheer audacity of still operating outside of IR35.

    I don't think this is the case. Most people will have shat themselves at the thought of being investigated and have shut their companies down given that there are now limited gigs outside and will have gone perm/umbrella et al. Staying at the same client from an outside position to inside is without a doubt low hanging fruit.

    Anyone now operating outside and have their companies open are doing so confidentially as they no doubt have an SDS that confirms this, so IMO HMRC will probably swerve those in the first instance as it will be the client on the neck, not the contractor.

    Leave a comment:


  • agentzero
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post

    TAAR says you can't start another company in 2 years after claiming BADR.
    But you can't claim BADR if you are still doing the same work for another company.
    So yes you can do what you want, but without BADR.
    Also, with just £13k, just wind the company yourself. Citizens advice have a guide on doing this. Your accountant can draw up the final set of accounts and you take the cash as dividend.
    This is incorrect. You can start up as many Limited Companies as you want but they cannot be in an identical or very similar business area. The interpretation of that is open. With due diligence it's fine, as long as you aren't contracting in IT within Project Management and then MVL, to then open another company with the intent and act of Project Management or acting as such, whether the job title matches or not, within 2 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by mogga71 View Post

    I reckon that the chances of being investigated once the Company has been shutdown are pretty damned slim. I have never heard of it happening.
    But we've never been in a situation where the LTD was shut down BECAUSE of an inside determination. Completely different world now. If you could guess the real number of IR35 investigations and you were completely wrong would you stop taking you never hearing it happen as a yard stick. Many cases don't get to the public eye. You could be right but because you haven't heard of isn't much of guide.

    Also remember shutting down isn't an option for many as they may have to MVL which means the can't contract under a LTD for two years etc. Not everyone that has gone inside can or should shut their LTD.

    Much more chance of being investigated if Company is still open and contractor has sheer audacity of still operating outside of IR35.
    Maybe but that's a poor example. With outside to inside HMRC has a letter from the client saying sorry my contractor has been inside all along. It's a slam dunk (nearly). Throwing in fraudulent tax practices isn't that helpful. If people are gonna do that then bring it on HMRC.
    I have heard people say that HMRC will look at contractors who have been forced to switch to inside from outside and will target them, saying you must have been inside all the time. However, I just can't see it. The contractors at the Banks were told they simply had to consider themselves inside ... even if they were outside ... or leave. If they left they probably wouldn't find another job so they stayed.
    I think you are being far too flippant and are missing details. Bank weren't told to consider themselves inside they've banned the use of PSC's which is wholly different. No determination is made. There is a lot to consider. Ban of PSCs, blanket inside and role based determinations all have different problems and risks. There are plenty of gigs out there that have had a proper determination made and I don't see how you can argue a contractor in that situation has any defence. To lump all these in to one comment you don't think any are worthy of investigation is very misguided.

    Personally think contractors who has worked for a Company that has made the 'all inside from outside' decision will likely be safe from retro investigations at same gig... especially if LTD has also been closed.
    Same as before. Not every company is doing this so why do you think they are safe? And that's only one situation out of many

    Common sense dictates it's free money for HMRC and now here is a massive black hole in the budget. You know, you actually might be right about them being safe in the long run but to be so flippant about the level of risk with a mountain of evidence against it I think is not a safe position. It's as head in the sand approach like many people have had about IR35 all along.

    Nothing might happen and you can come back in a few years and say I told you so but to be so flippant about it is wrong.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 4 March 2021, 10:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • mogga71
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Would it though? The contractor is on the hook for the tax they've paid so if they've received it in dividends HMRC would want to know why. They could still go back and investigate the engagement method even without the company. It's the contractor that's on the hood not the company? Got me all confused overthinking this now and I can't remember the answers we've given in the past.

    PI insurances would be different of course.
    I reckon that the chances of being investigated once the Company has been shutdown are pretty damned slim. I have never heard of it happening.

    Much more chance of being investigated if Company is still open and contractor has sheer audacity of still operating outside of IR35.

    I have heard people say that HMRC will look at contractors who have been forced to switch to inside from outside and will target them, saying you must have been inside all the time. However, I just can't see it. The contractors at the Banks were told they simply had to consider themselves inside ... even if they were outside ... or leave. If they left they probably wouldn't find another job so they stayed.

    Personally think contractors who has worked for a Company that has made the 'all inside from outside' decision will likely be safe from retro investigations at same gig... especially if LTD has also been closed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peejay
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post

    TAAR says you can't start another company in 2 years after claiming BADR.
    But you can't claim BADR if you are still doing the same work for another company.
    So yes you can do what you want, but without BADR.
    Also, with just £13k, just wind the company yourself. Citizens advice have a guide on doing this. Your accountant can draw up the final set of accounts and you take the cash as dividend.
    Thanks for clarifying the "qualification" for BADR. Although winding down is clearly the cheapest route, it doesn't give me the peace of mind that I think an MVL would, and that would be my primary reason for shutting down anyway. If I'm not doing it for MVL then I'd consider making the company dormant as a "backup plan" anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by Peejay View Post
    This is something I'm currently trying to decide on. I've been trading for 9yrs but spent a significant amount of that time (7yrs from 2012) with one client in *their* various guises over the years. I haven't worked/traded in this business since finishing my last contract, with a completely different client, in April 2020 (due to Covid) but I had already started another business with a long-time friend/ex-colleague a couple of years ago and we started actually trading in July 2020.

    I don't have much left in the "old" business (about £13k) but it has been suggested to me that if I were to MVL it then it would immediately remove any risk of IR35 investigation over the next 6 years. That has some value to me.

    Given that I'm paying around £200/yr for IR35 insurance, continuing to pay that for the next 6 yrs even if I were to just shut down the "old" company seems to get me awfully close to the £1500-ish cost of going down the MVL route which would allow me to sleep soundly at night knowing I don't have to worry about a knock on the door.

    As I'm already a director in the second business (which does similar work albeit with 3 of us in the company) then although I know I can't create another similar company for 2yrs, I'm fine to continue with the one that already exists/is trading.

    To keep things interesting March is my old company's EOY so ideally I need to decide ASAP to avoid starting another FY in that business.

    Does my thinking sound stupid or sensible?
    TAAR says you can't start another company in 2 years after claiming BADR.
    But you can't claim BADR if you are still doing the same work for another company.
    So yes you can do what you want, but without BADR.
    Also, with just £13k, just wind the company yourself. Citizens advice have a guide on doing this. Your accountant can draw up the final set of accounts and you take the cash as dividend.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X