Working practices inside IR35 on old contract.

[speling bee]

A badly spelled and punctuated one at that.

It is a worrying new trend.

[TheFaQQer]

It sounds somewhat like disguised employment.

A badly spelled and punctuated one at that.

[jamesbrown]

I'm not sure that's true. Whenever an "IR35 friendly" contract is mentioned on here, everyone rightly points out that it's working practices that count. No one points out that the working practices have to match exactly what the contract says. Just that they are also IR35 friendly.

I'm sure HMRC have no interest in whether you're particularly effective in delivering what you said you would, they're interested in how you do whatever you end up doing.

No, your contract needs to be consistent with your working practices. Granted, if they differ, it's your working practices that will be decisive in an IR35 investigation, but this will only come to light following a complete investigation, creating plenty of headaches for yourself along the way. You need to have a contract that is backed-up by working practices. And this isn't just about IR35 - I'm astonished by the number of people on here that frame everything in terms of IR35 - it's bad practice all around to be working different terms than those in your contract; where do you think that leaves you in the event that you fail to deliver on the written contract? What if the client argues that the person who agreed the changes was in no such position to do so? Of course, you need to be sensible about this if the changes could reasonably be interpreted as a variation on the original contractual terms (i.e. not a substantial change).

[JRCT]

Sheesh, this is totally the attitude of a disguised employee IMHO.

Sure, the scope of a project can change and that may require a change in deliverables. At that point, you have (or should have) a choice to either terminate the contract because the situation has materially changed (i.e. lack of MoO) or you write a new contract or a contract amendment. As long as the deliverables are agreed upfront, that's fine. What isn't fine - and not only from an IR35 perspective(!) - is a scenario where the client shifts you around at their will without a negotiation or change to the contract wording. If you're not delivering on the contract wording, that leaves you in a potentially precarious position, not just from an IR35 perspective.

I'm not sure that's true. Whenever an "IR35 friendly" contract is mentioned on here, everyone rightly points out that it's working practices that count. No one points out that the working practices have to match exactly what the contract says. Just that they are also IR35 friendly.

I'm sure HMRC have no interest in whether you're particularly effective in delivering what you said you would, they're interested in how you do whatever you end up doing.

[jamesbrown]

Seen a few contractors in my time shown the door for just being awkward. Can you do this or can you go there? No not in my contract. Two weeks later they're gone.

At the end of the day, clients even if they know what it is, don't give a monkeys butt about IR35. Your just a resource thats a bit different to a permie. If they ask you to do something slightly different then it might not be ideal but thats the score IMHO. At the end of the day it all about weighing it up.

Peeing off client and getting binned is a bit of an extreme measure to solve this issue. You might be right but you'll be right with no contract. Of course, if the sutuation carries on then you need to decide whats best come renewal time.

Of course, as well, make sure you are PCG member as well. Or some IR35 insurance.

Sheesh, this is totally the attitude of a disguised employee IMHO.

Sure, the scope of a project can change and that may require a change in deliverables. At that point, you have (or should have) a choice to either terminate the contract because the situation has materially changed (i.e. lack of MoO) or you write a new contract or a contract amendment. As long as the deliverables are agreed upfront, that's fine. What isn't fine - and not only from an IR35 perspective(!) - is a scenario where the client shifts you around at their will without a negotiation or change to the contract wording. If you're not delivering on the contract wording, that leaves you in a potentially precarious position, not just from an IR35 perspective.

[speling bee]

Seen a few contractors in my time shown the door for just being awkward. Can you do this or can you go there? No not in my contract. Two weeks later they're gone.

At the end of the day, clients even if they know what it is, don't give a monkeys butt about IR35. Your just a resource thats a bit different to a permie. If they ask you to do something slightly different then it might not be ideal but thats the score IMHO. At the end of the day it all about weighing it up.

Peeing off client and getting binned is a bit of an extreme measure to solve this issue. You might be right but you'll be right with no contract. Of course, if the sutuation carries on then you need to decide whats best come renewal time.

Of course, as well, make sure you are PCG member as well. Or some IR35 insurance.

It sounds somewhat like disguised employment.

[psychocandy]

Seen a few contractors in my time shown the door for just being awkward. Can you do this or can you go there? No not in my contract. Two weeks later they're gone.

At the end of the day, clients even if they know what it is, don't give a monkeys butt about IR35. Your just a resource thats a bit different to a permie. If they ask you to do something slightly different then it might not be ideal but thats the score IMHO. At the end of the day it all about weighing it up.

Peeing off client and getting binned is a bit of an extreme measure to solve this issue. You might be right but you'll be right with no contract. Of course, if the sutuation carries on then you need to decide whats best come renewal time.

Of course, as well, make sure you are PCG member as well. Or some IR35 insurance.

[ChimpMaster]

That's an interesting point, because of course, that's what happened. I was asked to help because they were in shtuck. Being a nice guy, I accepted.

I also vastly improved the processes that they were following, in most cases, because that's what I do well. So, from that point of view I am not doing what an employee would do, but my worry is that I was ultimately helping them to deliver BAU stuff such as month-end reporting etc.

It's a difficult and interesting position to be in. If you were painting someone's house and there was a leak in the bathroom, you would surely help the owner grab some towels, turn the water off and mop it up. You wouldn't say "Sorry love, not in my contract!"

Yes but it's all about D&C isn't it? So if they 'ask' you to help rather than 'tell' you to help, and if they let you get on with it however you want - then isn't that OK?

I've always wondered about my contract too. Generally I do a bit of everything - project work and BAU - but only related to one specific technology and I get on with it in whatever manner I choose: I can work at home or in the office, I can work on whatever tasks I choose and prioritize them myself, such as choosing to work on Live system incidents before non-critical project work. I am the only person in this company who knows the product, no one manages my time but me, no asks me any questions and I just get on with it.

To me I am well out of IR35, but there's never any certainty!

[JRCT]

No - because it isn't necessarily an IR35 factor. If they tell you that you must pick up the other stuff, then there is direction and control; if they ask whether you could help out and you accept that invitation, then there isn't direction and control.

That's an interesting point, because of course, that's what happened. I was asked to help because they were in shtuck. Being a nice guy, I accepted.

I also vastly improved the processes that they were following, in most cases, because that's what I do well. So, from that point of view I am not doing what an employee would do, but my worry is that I was ultimately helping them to deliver BAU stuff such as month-end reporting etc.

It's a difficult and interesting position to be in. If you were painting someone's house and there was a leak in the bathroom, you would surely help the owner grab some towels, turn the water off and mop it up. You wouldn't say "Sorry love, not in my contract!"

[TheFaQQer]

If a client has PWC in to do a piece of consultancy around organisation reconfiguration, do you think the client says one morning to the consultants, "We're in a real BAU mess, so can you help out this week?"

In some situations, yes. The consultancy I worked for regularly did work on a time hire or time and materials basis.

I worked on quite a few projects where we were diverted away from what we were meant to be working on to other areas - but since IR35 doesn't come into it for a large business, then it's irrelevant how they behave.

[malvolio]

Ok, this was an early contract for me. I was very niaive and I didn't fully understand IR35 and I made a couple of mistakes, which I wouldn't do now. However...


There's a previous contract I had that, from a 'Working Practices' pov, will not pass any IR35 inspection.

I was brought in for a specific purpose, which was fine, but then in the small team I was working alongside, everyone just left. After being there for 2 months, 4 people from a 5 people team had gone (I don't think it was anything personal).

It was then an 'all hands to the pump' situation and, from the teams's point of view, getting the BAU stuff done was more important than the project I was working on, in the short term. My hands were included in the 'all hands'.

It never occured to me at the time, and I guess that was niaivety on my part. Although if I'd said 'This is not in my contract, I'm here to do 'X', IR35 etc....', I'd have been out of the door.

So, rightly or wrongly, I am where I am and I need to think about what to do.

I guess the easiest course of action would be to put some money to one side, in case there's ever an investigation and the taxman laughs at me whilst saying "Yes, you DO owe me £X".

Has anyone else been in this situation?

Have you/ would you point-blank refuse to help out with BAU stuff if it was a desperate situation for the client, knowing it could breach IR35?

Also, it was a 6 month contract. Probably only 2-3 months of that time was as described, the rest was as per contract (ie. outside of IR35), will HMRC accept that, if it comes to it, or do they take an all or nothing approach regarding the length of contract (ie. the whole contract length is either in or out)?

How long do I need to be wary of this? Is there a point when I can just forget about it?

Ermm, IR35 isn't an option to be risked and/or ignored. If your work was clearly within its scope, you don't have a choice about how to deal with it, you have to apply the deemed employee rules to that portion of your income. So whatever you earned for that contract needs you to pay PAYE and all NICs on 95% of the gross.

Not doing that is evasion, pure and simple. You don't want to go there.

[TheFaQQer]

Have you/ would you point-blank refuse to help out with BAU stuff if it was a desperate situation for the client, knowing it could breach IR35?

No - because it isn't necessarily an IR35 factor. If they tell you that you must pick up the other stuff, then there is direction and control; if they ask whether you could help out and you accept that invitation, then there isn't direction and control.

Also, it was a 6 month contract. Probably only 2-3 months of that time was as described, the rest was as per contract (ie. outside of IR35), will HMRC accept that, if it comes to it, or do they take an all or nothing approach regarding the length of contract (ie. the whole contract length is either in or out)?

They should accept that for a certain period of the contract you were outside IR35 and some you were inside IR35 - be prepared to argue at what point you moved from being inside to being outside, though.

How long do I need to be wary of this? Is there a point when I can just forget about it?

6 years

[speling bee]

Ok, this was an early contract for me. I was very niaive and I didn't fully understand IR35 and I made a couple of mistakes, which I wouldn't do now. However...


There's a previous contract I had that, from a 'Working Practices' pov, will not pass any IR35 inspection.

I was brought in for a specific purpose, which was fine, but then in the small team I was working alongside, everyone just left. After being there for 2 months, 4 people from a 5 people team had gone (I don't think it was anything personal).

It was then an 'all hands to the pump' situation and, from the teams's point of view, getting the BAU stuff done was more important than the project I was working on, in the short term. My hands were included in the 'all hands'.

It never occured to me at the time, and I guess that was niaivety on my part. Although if I'd said 'This is not in my contract, I'm here to do 'X', IR35 etc....', I'd have been out of the door.

So, rightly or wrongly, I am where I am and I need to think about what to do.

I guess the easiest course of action would be to put some money to one side, in case there's ever an investigation and the taxman laughs at me whilst saying "Yes, you DO owe me £X".

Has anyone else been in this situation?

Have you/ would you point-blank refuse to help out with BAU stuff if it was a desperate situation for the client, knowing it could breach IR35?

Also, it was a 6 month contract. Probably only 2-3 months of that time was as described, the rest was as per contract (ie. outside of IR35), will HMRC accept that, if it comes to it, or do they take an all or nothing approach regarding the length of contract (ie. the whole contract length is either in or out)?

How long do I need to be wary of this? Is there a point when I can just forget about it?

I position myself so that I don't get asked to do BAU work, but I would refuse.

If a client has PWC in to do a piece of consultancy around organisation reconfiguration, do you think the client says one morning to the consultants, "We're in a real BAU mess, so can you help out this week?"

[JRCT]

Ok, this was an early contract for me. I was very niaive and I didn't fully understand IR35 and I made a couple of mistakes, which I wouldn't do now. However...


There's a previous contract I had that, from a 'Working Practices' pov, will not pass any IR35 inspection.

I was brought in for a specific purpose, which was fine, but then in the small team I was working alongside, everyone just left. After being there for 2 months, 4 people from a 5 people team had gone (I don't think it was anything personal).

It was then an 'all hands to the pump' situation and, from the teams's point of view, getting the BAU stuff done was more important than the project I was working on, in the short term. My hands were included in the 'all hands'.

It never occured to me at the time, and I guess that was niaivety on my part. Although if I'd said 'This is not in my contract, I'm here to do 'X', IR35 etc....', I'd have been out of the door.

So, rightly or wrongly, I am where I am and I need to think about what to do.

I guess the easiest course of action would be to put some money to one side, in case there's ever an investigation and the taxman laughs at me whilst saying "Yes, you DO owe me £X".

Has anyone else been in this situation?

Have you/ would you point-blank refuse to help out with BAU stuff if it was a desperate situation for the client, knowing it could breach IR35?

Also, it was a 6 month contract. Probably only 2-3 months of that time was as described, the rest was as per contract (ie. outside of IR35), will HMRC accept that, if it comes to it, or do they take an all or nothing approach regarding the length of contract (ie. the whole contract length is either in or out)?

How long do I need to be wary of this? Is there a point when I can just forget about it?