• 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 "IR35 answers from HMRC"

Collapse

  • TwoWolves
    replied
    While we are talking about Employers’ NI, there was a suggestion by HMRC that an ‘inside’ determination creates automatic costs for the client in the form of Employers’ NI. This might be true where there is a direct engagement, but that is the exception rather than the rule. In most cases there is a complex supply chain, which means the employers’ NI burden falls nowhere near the end-client. In many cases, an inside determination will result in the insertion of an umbrella company that will reduce the payment to the contractor so that it can pay the NI: in other words, it’s the contractor who gets landed with the bill.

    This was quickly pointed out to HMRC, but it made us realise we need to make sure everyone is clear on this. If the government’s intention was for clients to pay additional NI for people they should really be employing, then this legislation is failing. In most cases clients are not paying it – individuals are.
    This bit makes me laugh. HMRC actually imagine the client will volunteer to pay Employer's NI, these people are muppets (or liars).

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by NowPermOutsideUK View Post
    Actually it reasserted that hmrc can only look back six years for ir35 which is very handy. For some reason I thought they could go back 20 years which would have been a worry
    The timelines are 4, 6 and 20 years for nominal, careless and fraudulent behaviour, respectively.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by NowPermOutsideUK View Post
    Actually it reasserted that hmrc can only look back six years for ir35 which is very handy. For some reason I thought they could go back 20 years which would have been a worry
    It's a convention. They normally stop at 6 years for convenience as much as anything. They can go back as far as they like, but normally up to 20 years is all that's necessary, if they have a good reason to do so. In the case of IR35 that would be along the lines of ignoring the legislation completely, as opposed to making an incorrect assessment of it.

    That whole article actually says nothing of interest or relevance, sadly. It's tone is very much that HMRC will ignore any sensible representations about faults in the process.

    And IPSE are still out there - its just they are attacking the wrong targets these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • NowPermOutsideUK
    replied
    Actually it reasserted that hmrc can only look back six years for ir35 which is very handy. For some reason I thought they could go back 20 years which would have been a worry

    Leave a comment:


  • courtg9000
    replied
    Originally posted by SimonMac View Post
    I didn't realise IPSE was still a thing
    its not

    Leave a comment:


  • SimonMac
    replied
    Originally posted by GhostofTarbera View Post
    I didn't realise IPSE was still a thing

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostofTarbera
    replied
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Yeah, I think you can safely ignore pretty much all of that.
    A tad wishy washy


    Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Yeah, I think you can safely ignore pretty much all of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostofTarbera
    started a topic IR35 answers from HMRC

    IR35 answers from HMRC

    Very interesting

    What HMRC told us about the changes to IR35 | IPSE


    Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

Working...
X