• 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: IR35 poser

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 "IR35 poser"

Collapse

  • Old Greg
    replied
    Negotiate an extra £10 per day. New project. New quote.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craig at Nixon Williams
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    The first one has no bearing on status - you will be a supplier on a new project, with a new scope of work defined accordingly. Doing work on demand is what an employee does, so the latter is problematic (working outside of the scope of supply - skillset is irrelevant).
    I'd assume that the first option would be a new project with a new contract whereas the second one would be the same project with the same contract but a deviation from the contracted work. I therefore agree with jamesbrown - working on demand on whatever you are told to is the sort of control that exists in an employment relationship, I think option 2 is more problematic from an IR35 perspective!

    Hope this helps!
    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Really, the OP needs to clarify the scenarios in terms of whether new contracts are being drawn-up, because they are both bad in the absence of new contracts/schedules of work. But, from the info. that the OP does provide, this is a red flag: "but not included with the description of the work schedule of being pedantic." Or it would've been a red flag, had it been written in English

    Leave a comment:


  • GazCol
    replied
    Both a bad, but if scaled, I would say issue 1 is a higher risk, dependent on how the contract is worded, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    (or at least the Work Schedule amended, agreed and signed.)
    I did this after asking the boards opinion awhile ago and although I do think it is enough for minor moves within a project I just felt it wasn't enough. I know it is ok and easily defendable I just wanted it to be a bit more... meaty. I had a good relationship with the client so they were happy to terminate the contract for the first piece of work and start a whole new one for the next piece. I felt a lot more comfortable with this as well as a binned notice to boot.

    Over the top for what is necessary I know, just wanted it belt and braces for my own peace of mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    (or at least the Work Schedule amended, agreed and signed.)

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    As long as a new contract is raised with a detailed description of the work I don't think either are a problem.

    If you slide from one skill to another it can look very permiesque but if it is a new piece of contracted work then you can easily argue it is a new opportunity. That is how Cognizant, Wipro etc make their money.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    The first one has no bearing on status - you will be a supplier on a new project, with a new scope of work defined accordingly. Doing work on demand is what an employee does, so the latter is problematic (working outside of the scope of supply - skillset is irrelevant).

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Suppose you have the choice of the following:-

    Move to a different project in clientco
    Stay in the same project but perform a different task (within your skill set but not included with the description of the work schedule of being pedantic.)

    Which one is more IR35 unfriendly. Its a theoretical question more than a real one so no insults required....
    Both are equally unfriendly. Both would require a new contract agreed and signed (although this is easier to do during contract extension).

    I walked from a contract that canned the project I was on and expected me to do something else.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    started a topic IR35 poser

    IR35 poser

    Suppose you have the choice of the following:-

    Move to a different project in clientco
    Stay in the same project but perform a different task (within your skill set but not included with the description of the work schedule of being pedantic.)

    Which one is more IR35 unfriendly. Its a theoretical question more than a real one so no insults required....

Working...
X