• 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.

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 "Transferring Contract to Inside IR35"

Collapse

  • mogga71
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Bear in mind that a ban on PSCs is not the same as "inside IR35", although it could mean that the client thinks your working practices are inside IR35. The latter would be unfortunate in the (unlikely) event of an investigation w/r to your current contract or previous contracts, but clients are not routinely declaring contracts to be "inside IR35", rather they are routinely avoiding PSCs altogether.
    This is actually a very good point. However I don't think its a case of clients thinking your working practices are now inside ir35 .... more like they couldn't give a monkeys now and didn't give it a moment's thought. Makes you wonder how an investigation would go for the many thousands in the financial services who basically works for clients who have banned PSC's. They can't really state that you used to be outside but because your pesky cowardly client banned all PSC's and you are still there then you must be inside....can they? Of course they can.
    Last edited by mogga71; 5 May 2021, 13:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by RobScott View Post

    You don't have scare people, while most of them do this.
    Is that have to or half?

    Nothing wrong with pointing out the situation to people. If they are clueless to what they do then making them aware of the possible outcomes isn't a bad thing. Nothing untrue in the what he said and I've no doubt it will start to happen so it's a lottery but still knowing what you are letting yourself in for is good advice. Up to whoever it is reading to go away and looking to the levels or risk and making a decision themselves.

    You could argue it's the same people that don't know this that kinda caught the attention of HMRC so getting people to pull their finger out their asses in general isn't a bad thing either.

    To sit there and say screw it just carry on is the wrong way. IMO anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • RobScott
    replied
    Originally posted by yorkshirespud View Post

    C. Neither - you ideally need to leave or put yourself in danger of retroactive action from HMRC (regardless of what they say).

    If this month you are "outside", and then next month "inside" for exactly the same role, then your "outside-ness" of all the time you have so far already spent working for the client becomes hard to defend.


    Even if your next role at a different client is inside IR35, that would be a better position to be in - you worked for the current client outside, you work for the next client inside - the two roles are different clients and not connected.


    A lot of people will no doubt be going down this same road - better to get on the merry go round of contractors changing roles, even if they are inside.

    You don't want to be at the same role next month with a switch from outside to inside.
    You don't have scare people, while most of them do this.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by CountryGirl View Post
    Hi Guys,
    Thanks a lot for your input.
    There were quite a few aspects here involved in the switch that I haven't been aware of (part of my wishful thinking I guess).
    Much appreciate your help.
    I don't think that's the right term to be using.

    You've got a week to leave so better buck up.

    Leave a comment:


  • CountryGirl
    replied
    Hi Guys,
    Thanks a lot for your input.
    There were quite a few aspects here involved in the switch that I haven't been aware of (part of my wishful thinking I guess).
    Much appreciate your help.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by michaelC View Post

    then he does MVL. is that an issue? - apart from having to wait 2 yrs before going outside ir35 again.
    That is not to be dismissed so trivially. An inside gig now could end in 3 months or less. 21 months lost outside is a considerable amount. I want to go outside but I can't is going to be a very common topic on here over the next year or even two. We've already had two to date. Many people my be better off MVL'ing and staying inside for two years. I'll bet many others won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    And if they have too much in so have to MVL?
    Take it all out, pay the tax, get over it. Slowly.

    Leave a comment:


  • michaelC
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    And if they have too much in so have to MVL?
    then he does MVL. is that an issue? - apart from having to wait 2 yrs before going outside ir35 again.
    Last edited by michaelC; 26 March 2021, 14:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by michaelC View Post
    Just accept the inside contract whatever max rate they give, and quickly close the LTD company down - takes only 6 months.
    thin the herd

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by michaelC View Post
    Just accept the inside contract whatever max rate they give, and quickly close the LTD company down - takes only 6 months.
    And if they have too much in so have to MVL?

    Leave a comment:


  • michaelC
    replied
    Just accept the inside contract whatever max rate they give, and quickly close the LTD company down - takes only 6 months.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post

    we should celebrate every MVL query with a or 3. Thinning out the numbers
    But we are gonna have to deal with the endless threas about taking MVL and now they've been offered an outside gig and didn't think it through. I'll clear my infractions list so I'm ready.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post

    while crying about how unfair it is that they now have to pay tax.
    They've always had to pay tax. It's NICs they have been missing...

    HTH...

    Leave a comment:


  • GitMaster69
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post

    we should celebrate every MVL query with a or 3. Thinning out the numbers
    We should even encourage it ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    Originally posted by GitMaster69 View Post
    yeah let those people be inside.

    Less supply of proper contractors around is a good thing
    we should celebrate every MVL query with a or 3. Thinning out the numbers

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X