Reply to: Dust settles - what happened?

[Bluenose]

People are moving away from the point of this thread - anyone get any real world examples of what has happened/is happening as it has all gone quiet?

My personal feeling (guess) is that most have taken the hit and carried on bau.

My guess is that half of them were permietractors and will just suck it up, a quarter of them were permietractors and were declared outside and remainder were not Permietractors.

Permietractor wont be bothered but wife/Eastern European mistress will be.

Slowdown in consumer spending on shoes and women's trinkets direct result of this change

I am hoping for a rent decrease as a direct result of this lot having less cash sloshing around.

Just kidding folks (maybe).

[psychocandy]

Was the role outside? Did you meet one of the three pillars of IR35 defence - RoS, lack of MOO, lack of SDC? Because if you did have those then you have a defence against any attempt to paint you inside IR35, regardless of what HMRC's ESS shows. ESS has no basis in law - the tribunal will certainly consider what it says but a competent defence will show that the tool does not reflect the reality of the situation.

If you don't think that you would win an IR35 defence, because you are going to fail all three pillars of employment, then there may be an argument that says that you should have been paying the appropriate level of taxes all along and declared the contract to be inside IR35. Penalties would only apply if you can be shown to have actively evaded the tax due by hiding your IR35 status - given some previous posts about whether the roles are inside or outside I can understand why you might be worried about that.

I thought so at the time but borderline maybe. I'd been there a while so it was time for something new anyway and I just could not be bothered with all the hassle. The client were starting to play the one month extension game so my days were numbered anyway.

But worked out well because I got a new gig within a few weeks...

[northernladyuk]

Was the role outside? Did you meet one of the three pillars of IR35 defence - RoS, lack of MOO, lack of SDC? Because if you did have those then you have a defence against any attempt to paint you inside IR35, regardless of what HMRC's ESS shows. ESS has no basis in law - the tribunal will certainly consider what it says but a competent defence will show that the tool does not reflect the reality of the situation.

If you don't think that you would win an IR35 defence, because you are going to fail all three pillars of employment, then there may be an argument that says that you should have been paying the appropriate level of taxes all along and declared the contract to be inside IR35. Penalties would only apply if you can be shown to have actively evaded the tax due by hiding your IR35 status - given some previous posts about whether the roles are inside or outside I can understand why you might be worried about that.

They are borderline at best. It is what it is.

[TheFaQQer]

Fair point. Yes I agree with you its very unlikely that HMRC will be able to piece this all together.

BUT in the unlikely event they do, then I'd say they have a rock solid IR35 case against you. Example - you've been doing a role for a year before April and operating as outside. Client decides you are inside now. HMRC potentially have a piece of paper saying client says you're inside so why have you been declaring yourself outside for the last year?

In my last role, I'd been there 2 years and they were fannying around sorting the issues out so I left. I calculated the monetary risk and it was something stupid like £30-£40K PLUS penalties. Life changing amounts. Sorry too risky for me.

Im in a PS role inside IR35 (and operating as thus) but its a different role/client so no retrospective.

Was the role outside? Did you meet one of the three pillars of IR35 defence - RoS, lack of MOO, lack of SDC? Because if you did have those then you have a defence against any attempt to paint you inside IR35, regardless of what HMRC's ESS shows. ESS has no basis in law - the tribunal will certainly consider what it says but a competent defence will show that the tool does not reflect the reality of the situation.

If you don't think that you would win an IR35 defence, because you are going to fail all three pillars of employment, then there may be an argument that says that you should have been paying the appropriate level of taxes all along and declared the contract to be inside IR35. Penalties would only apply if you can be shown to have actively evaded the tax due by hiding your IR35 status - given some previous posts about whether the roles are inside or outside I can understand why you might be worried about that.

[northernladyuk]

You don't think there is another reason they do this, apart from popularity?

You don't think there is more than one other reason they do this?

[northernladyuk]

I know its considered popular on this forum disagreeing with every post I make but I think its still considered a bit of a risk by most....

it's

[northernladuk]

I know its considered popular on this forum disagreeing with every post I make but I think its still considered a bit of a risk by most....

You don't think there is another reason they do this, apart from popularity?

[psychocandy]

I'm not disagreeing with you to be popular - I'm disagreeing because what you suggest is based on HMRC somehow being able to make a connection between multiple data sets where they do not have the data to link them together.

You think it's a risk, which is a perfectly valid thought to have. The questions that I put to you earlier are an attempt to see the likelihood of the risk being valid - they were also intended to maybe encourage people to think about what they are writing before they post about things.

Think about the data that HMRC have available (and I know that I've said this a number of times, but maybe another go will help). What do they know from the previous contract that is reported via the agency reporting requirements? What do they know now via the agency reporting requirements? What do they know from the current PAYE reports from the umbrella? What is the link between the two? Does that link include any information about the work that they contractor does now or was doing before? Does that link indicate IR35 status? Does HMRC know whether the contractor has taken a permanent position anywhere?

Now, when you have considered the information that HMRC have to hand, answer the question - how likely is it that HMRC can piece together something in this scenario that indicates anything about current or previous IR35 status? Given that likelihhod of being able to piece together a connection, how much of a risk is this really to be taking a break and moving agency and employer to a new contract?

Fair point. Yes I agree with you its very unlikely that HMRC will be able to piece this all together.

BUT in the unlikely event they do, then I'd say they have a rock solid IR35 case against you. Example - you've been doing a role for a year before April and operating as outside. Client decides you are inside now. HMRC potentially have a piece of paper saying client says you're inside so why have you been declaring yourself outside for the last year?

In my last role, I'd been there 2 years and they were fannying around sorting the issues out so I left. I calculated the monetary risk and it was something stupid like £30-£40K PLUS penalties. Life changing amounts. Sorry too risky for me.

Im in a PS role inside IR35 (and operating as thus) but its a different role/client so no retrospective.

[Whorty]

"This role is based in central Bristol, but you may need to visit London and Reading. Some remote working may be possible."

This made me laugh; translation: you will travel all the time, no remote working at all.

qh

My kind of contract ... working between multiple client sites

[TheFaQQer]

I would not bet on that...

If they look at the engagement and find evidence of contrived collusion between the contractor and client to cut their costs those expenses are going to be ripe for repayment and there will be a strong case to answer as to them being knowingly claimed under false pretences...

Liability for getting the determination wrong sits with the fee payer, not the contractor or end client.

[TheFaQQer]

I know its considered popular on this forum disagreeing with every post I make but I think its still considered a bit of a risk by most....

I'm not disagreeing with you to be popular - I'm disagreeing because what you suggest is based on HMRC somehow being able to make a connection between multiple data sets where they do not have the data to link them together.

You think it's a risk, which is a perfectly valid thought to have. The questions that I put to you earlier are an attempt to see the likelihood of the risk being valid - they were also intended to maybe encourage people to think about what they are writing before they post about things.

Think about the data that HMRC have available (and I know that I've said this a number of times, but maybe another go will help). What do they know from the previous contract that is reported via the agency reporting requirements? What do they know now via the agency reporting requirements? What do they know from the current PAYE reports from the umbrella? What is the link between the two? Does that link include any information about the work that they contractor does now or was doing before? Does that link indicate IR35 status? Does HMRC know whether the contractor has taken a permanent position anywhere?

Now, when you have considered the information that HMRC have to hand, answer the question - how likely is it that HMRC can piece together something in this scenario that indicates anything about current or previous IR35 status? Given that likelihhod of being able to piece together a connection, how much of a risk is this really to be taking a break and moving agency and employer to a new contract?

[bobspud]

No contractor is going to face penalties or criminal fraud charges if their PS client declared the role outside.

I would not bet on that...

If they look at the engagement and find evidence of contrived collusion between the contractor and client to cut their costs those expenses are going to be ripe for repayment and there will be a strong case to answer as to them being knowingly claimed under false pretences...

[psychocandy]

Do HMRC have any information that says "this person is doing the same role"? Do they have any information that says "this role is the same"? Do they have any information other than "this person used to appear on the agency reporting requirements and now doesn't"?

I know its considered popular on this forum disagreeing with every post I make but I think its still considered a bit of a risk by most....

[SueEllen]

"This role is based in central Bristol, but you may need to visit London and Reading. Some remote working may be possible."

This made me laugh; translation: you will travel all the time, no remote working at all.

qh

The working is remote - from your home.

[quackhandle]

roles popping up stating 'Outside IR35' -

Jobserve Linky

"This role is based in central Bristol, but you may need to visit London and Reading. Some remote working may be possible."

This made me laugh; translation: you will travel all the time, no remote working at all.

qh