Reply to: How work out the equivalent rate for inside IR35?

[WordIsBond]

I am finishing my PS, 4 month contract tomorrow as I have been deemed inside IR35 too.
They have just asked if after a 1 week break, I come back on a 30% increase inside IR35.

I will talk to my accountant of course, and seeing as I have relatively low exposure I may take it.

Just thought I'd put it out there, as something which has "happened"!

See if you can do it direct or through a different agent, it might decrease your risk of retrospective inspection.

Remember that 30% has to compensate you not only for tax but also for loss of T&S expenses, if any. But it's not a bad offer.

[bigthumper]

I am finishing my PS, 4 month contract tomorrow as I have been deemed inside IR35 too.
They have just asked if after a 1 week break, I come back on a 30% increase inside IR35.

I will talk to my accountant of course, and seeing as I have relatively low exposure I may take it.

Just thought I'd put it out there, as something which has "happened"!

[LondonManc]

I suspect they won't be that stupid - but you can see the revenge desire given the rumoured impact on "Making Tax Digital" and other projects (even the ESS tool)...

Well yes. But if they're foolish enough to think that they can keep taxing people then, who knows, perhaps Ayn Rand was right after all.

[eek]

Quite sad indeed that they're going after the ones who won't play by their rules and simply roll over to suit their numbers.

I suspect they won't be that stupid - but you can see the revenge desire given the rumoured impact on "Making Tax Digital" and other projects (even the ESS tool)...

[MrMarkyMark]

Agency reporting regulations give you NI number which would be enough to do something with...

However they would not be able to identify who left a public sector contract and who left a private sector contract.

This is about revenge and its actually pointless. I'm happy for HMRC to do it as it would waste their time fighting cases with a decent defence but its not a good use of their time...

This

[LondonManc]

Agency reporting regulations give you NI number which would be enough to do something with...

However they would not be able to identify who left a public sector contract and who left a private sector contract.

This is about revenge and its actually pointless. I'm happy for HMRC to do it as it would waste their time fighting cases with a decent defence but its not a good use of their time...

Quite sad indeed that they're going after the ones who won't play by their rules and simply roll over to suit their numbers.

[eek]

Was wondering how they would tie the data sets together?

Anyway, should be a completely moot point as every contract is assessed differently with regards to IR35.

This sounds like some kind of HMRC wet dream rather than anything tangible, probably written as some wish list item by some 25 year old policy maker.

Agency reporting regulations give you NI number which would be enough to do something with...

However they would not be able to identify who left a public sector contract and who left a private sector contract.

This is about revenge and its actually pointless. I'm happy for HMRC to do it as it would waste their time fighting cases with a decent defence but its not a good use of their time...

[LondonManc]

I think their take is that if you have always worked in the PS, and now are switching because of the changes to IR35, that the reason they are changing is to "avoid tax" and that you would always have been caught - just my interpretation though.

The actual text reads as follows: "If it appears they are choosing to go and work in the private sector to simply maintain "outside of IR35 status" you (the PS Body) should consider informing HMRC, who might take action to investigate the contractor's tax affairs further if they are seen as high risk."

Rather than considering that they're doing so to actually be able to keep a reasonable standard of living - i.e. working outside if there's significant travel involved.

Where do they get these people from?

[MrMarkyMark]

I think their take is that if you have always worked in the PS, and now are switching because of the changes to IR35, that the reason they are changing is to "avoid tax" and that you would always have been caught - just my interpretation though.

The actual text reads as follows: "If it appears they are choosing to go and work in the private sector to simply maintain "outside of IR35 status" you (the PS Body) should consider informing HMRC, who might take action to investigate the contractor's tax affairs further if they are seen as high risk."

The PS body have got to turn Queens about something they didn't cause in the first place
...

[lucyclarityumbrella]

In all seriousness, is it the "looks guilty" line that they're taking?
Given the role was always deemed outside, surely those that are leaving are probably the ones that are covering their backsides far better?

I think their take is that if you have always worked in the PS, and now are switching because of the changes to IR35, that the reason they are changing is to "avoid tax" and that you would always have been caught - just my interpretation though.

The actual text reads as follows: "If it appears they are choosing to go and work in the private sector to simply maintain "outside of IR35 status" you (the PS Body) should consider informing HMRC, who might take action to investigate the contractor's tax affairs further if they are seen as high risk."

[MrMarkyMark]

I think Lucy means that HMRC are going with the "they've jumped, that looks guilty" approach, rather than considering that it's tantamount to a 50% rate cut for those with reasonable travel expenses to move from outside to inside IR35.

Was wondering how they would tie the data sets together?

Anyway, should be a completely moot point as every contract is assessed differently with regards to IR35.

This sounds like some kind of HMRC wet dream rather than anything tangible, probably written as some wish list item by some 25 year old policy maker.

[LondonManc]

It would be insane to think that they would consider the latter, surely!

In all seriousness, is it the "looks guilty" line that they're taking?
Given the role was always deemed outside, surely those that are leaving are probably the ones that are covering their backsides far better?

[lucyclarityumbrella]

I think Lucy means that HMRC are going with the "they've jumped, that looks guilty" approach, rather than considering that it's tantamount to a 50% rate cut for those with reasonable travel expenses to move from outside to inside IR35.

It would be insane to think that they would consider the latter, surely!

[LondonManc]

Errrrm, don't get how they, HMRC, would work that out really

I think Lucy means that HMRC are going with the "they've jumped, that looks guilty" approach, rather than considering that it's tantamount to a 50% rate cut for those with reasonable travel expenses to move from outside to inside IR35.

[MrMarkyMark]

In terms of retrospective, having been privy to a certain PS body document, I think the ones that have worked in the PS for some time, and then jump to Private are the ones that are likely to be targeted by the lovely folk at HMRC.

Errrrm, don't get how they, HMRC, would work that out really