Originally posted by PerfectStorm
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!
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 "Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?"
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
Before or after being introduced to the client?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PerfectStorm View PostNow being asked by one agency to opt out of 2003 regs for Inside work ("because the client has asked that we don't put anyone forward who hasn't so that they don't start demanding employee rights") - is this a thing anyone's encountered?
Or is agency just trying to make sure they're don't have a duty to pay contractors and have restrictive covenants etc. as before?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PerfectStorm View PostNow being asked by one agency to opt out of 2003 regs for Inside work ("because the client has asked that we don't put anyone forward who hasn't so that they don't start demanding employee rights") - is this a thing anyone's encountered?
Or is agency just trying to make sure they're don't have a duty to pay contractors and have restrictive covenants etc. as before?
It only makes sense for the umbrella or the agency side who are doing your pay roll to sign it.
Leave a comment:
-
Now being asked by one agency to opt out of 2003 regs for Inside work ("because the client has asked that we don't put anyone forward who hasn't so that they don't start demanding employee rights") - is this a thing anyone's encountered?
Or is agency just trying to make sure they're don't have a duty to pay contractors and have restrictive covenants etc. as before?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Eirikur View PostAnother agency trying to force me to opt -out, I haven't opted out for the last 10 years and they claim (like all agencies) they never had a contractor who did not want to opt-out, to which I said I don't believe you, they even wrote this in the contract:
If the company contractor and its consultant do not opt out of the Conduct Regulations, this may be deemed to compromise their tax status under
IR35, i.e. it may increase the chances of an assignment falling within IR35. This is for the following reasons:
o the Conduct Regulations provide quasi-employment protection to contractors; and
o the Conduct Regulations state that the services provided by are to find assignments where the contractor acts for
and "under the control" of the client. The concept of "control" is an employment indicator. When assessing whether or not an assignment
falls within IR35, HM Revenue & Customs looks for employment indicators.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Eirikur View PostAnother agency trying to force me to opt -out, I haven't opted out for the last 10 years and they claim (like all agencies) they never had a contractor who did not want to opt-out, to which I said I don't believe you, they even wrote this in the contract:
If the company contractor and its consultant do not opt out of the Conduct Regulations, this may be deemed to compromise their tax status under
IR35, i.e. it may increase the chances of an assignment falling within IR35. This is for the following reasons:
o the Conduct Regulations provide quasi-employment protection to contractors; and
o the Conduct Regulations state that the services provided by are to find assignments where the contractor acts for
and "under the control" of the client. The concept of "control" is an employment indicator. When assessing whether or not an assignment
falls within IR35, HM Revenue & Customs looks for employment indicators.
Leave a comment:
-
Another agency trying to force me to opt -out, I haven't opted out for the last 10 years and they claim (like all agencies) they never had a contractor who did not want to opt-out, to which I said I don't believe you, they even wrote this in the contract:
If the company contractor and its consultant do not opt out of the Conduct Regulations, this may be deemed to compromise their tax status under
IR35, i.e. it may increase the chances of an assignment falling within IR35. This is for the following reasons:
o the Conduct Regulations provide quasi-employment protection to contractors; and
o the Conduct Regulations state that the services provided by <ABC Agency> are to find assignments where the contractor acts for
and "under the control" of the client. The concept of "control" is an employment indicator. When assessing whether or not an assignment
falls within IR35, HM Revenue & Customs looks for employment indicators.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostThe opt out was designed to add financial risk to show you were utterly outside(WTT today referenced it as a 4th pillar in determining status but i wouldn’t go that far)
however for an inside contract you (and sane umbrellas) would prefer that agencies had to pay even if the end client doesn’t
so my advice would be to not opt out (oh I can see an argument coming when people discover what’s about to happen)
I excluded the out-out form.
Leave a comment:
-
The opt out was designed to add financial risk to show you were utterly outside(WTT today referenced it as a 4th pillar in determining status but i wouldn’t go that far)
however for an inside contract you (and sane umbrellas) would prefer that agencies had to pay even if the end client doesn’t
so my advice would be to not opt out (oh I can see an argument coming when people discover what’s about to happen)
Leave a comment:
-
wow 660 replies.
Just going through documents from agency for an inside IR35 contract and came across the out out document to either sign or disregard. Agency handles (I think) all employment by the client so unlikely they will do something the client is not aware of or instigated.
Just gone through the last 10 pages and I am still confused.
In summary, Don't sign opt-out form and see if agency tries to force me?
Last edited by css_jay99; 29 April 2022, 19:02.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View Post
Like I said, the agency has f*** all idea of the laws that govern their business.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MrC View Post
Well, this is what the agency seem to be attempting via the contract and it's on their payroll. I wonder if this clause is a copy-paste hangover from old outisde IR35 contracts.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
You can't opt out if you are on agency payroll - a third party is required within the contractual relationship for an opt out to be legally offered.
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
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Yesterday 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
- Is an unpaid umbrella company required to pay contractors? Nov 26 09:28
- The truth of umbrella company regulation is being misconstrued Nov 25 09:23
- Labour’s plan to regulate umbrella companies: a closer look Nov 21 09:24
- When HMRC misses an FTT deadline but still wins another CJRS case Nov 20 09:20
- How 15% employer NICs will sting the umbrella company market Nov 19 09:16
Leave a comment: