Also I wonder if after the PS client 'forcing' the contractor to operate inside IR35 on a catch-all determination whether any tax can be claimed back if a future investigation by HMRC accepts the real work practices and situation was actually outside IR35?
May take a class action lawsuit by those affected to get any movement from HMRC if they apply retrospective actions for their own advantage only.
- 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!
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.
Logging in...
Previously on "Returning to the same PS client as 'Inside IR35' after being 'Outside IR35' before"
Collapse
-
If the old contract was deemed outside IR35 by a reputable reviewer (e.g. QDOS) with all the written proof that provides, and the new contract is same as the old as far as role requirements goes yet client says it's inside IR35, then as long as you operate as you did to be outside previously (working practices regardless of new contract terms) then should be little to worry about.
Even if the HMRC bogeyman does investigate they (if QDOS et al know their stuff) should find you actually outside regardless of the client's determination. If they do find you inside for the new contract due to rule changes since the old contract then it still looks good as far as any retrospective investigation goes as they can't apply new rules to old contract determination.
That's the theory, may take a while for any feedback on real world investigations to see if it hold up.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostYes they will cover for any work pre-April as long as the contract review is ok etc. EVEN if you're staying in a PS role past April and client decides its inside - as I would have been.
Obviously, you've got to work out the liabilty and buy the right amount of cover (£25K chunks up top £100K I believe).
Of course, past April no chance but it, at least, covers the worry about that. Not ideal I know but when you're choices are on the bench, or stay in PS role I wouldnt go near if there was even a minute risk of getting hoofed in the nuts by HMRC for £50K. Like I said, few £....
This was a few months ago mind. At the time, I thought the insurers werent really thinking it through. After all, as per previous post, how can you defend it when client says your inside and its the same role as last year?
Unless of course you previously ignored reality and declared your role to be outside when it wasn't. In which case...
This is also why talk of retrospection in pointless. If HMRC did do that and were defeated on appeal, as would be highly likely, the whole PS/IR35 pack of cards falls down. Why would they risk that?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostNot sure they will cover you retrospectively would they?
Obviously, you've got to work out the liabilty and buy the right amount of cover (£25K chunks up top £100K I believe).
Of course, past April no chance but it, at least, covers the worry about that. Not ideal I know but when you're choices are on the bench, or stay in PS role I wouldnt go near if there was even a minute risk of getting hoofed in the nuts by HMRC for £50K. Like I said, few £....
This was a few months ago mind. At the time, I thought the insurers werent really thinking it through. After all, as per previous post, how can you defend it when client says your inside and its the same role as last year?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostYeah, whatever. Too many things wrong in that post but hey, they've changed the rules, you're following them, you're now paying probably 30% more taxes that you are actually liable for so they're happy. Can't believe they see much point in going backwards myself..
BUT, its hard to defend a position where HMRC have got a bit of paper saying "client says your inside IR35, so why did you declare outside if its the same role?"
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostHmmm. Risky.... Not sure I'd be keen.
You could get insurance - people like QDOS will cover you for things like this i.e. retrospective claims. If I remember correctly few hundred £. For me this would be a no brainer.
Not saying HMRC will do this but who knows. And of course, if they ask client first thing they'll say is "yes its same role, so?"
Leave a comment:
-
Yeah, whatever. Too many things wrong in that post but hey, they've changed the rules, you're following them, you're now paying probably 30% more taxes that you are actually liable for so they're happy. Can't believe they see much point in going backwards myself..
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostThey will cover you only if you are genuinely outside IR35 in their opinion. which means that you are probably genuinely outside IR35...
Still seems like a waste of money to me and it's been said a couple of times that retrospective investigations are unlikely, but it is still a risk that some will want to minimise.
I remember when I was in the same position. I'd had the initial contract sorted by them anyway and there were no nasties on the questionnaire.
Waste of money maybe. But then so is things like house insurance if you never need it. Going back to me - worked out my liability was over £30K minimum IF I got stung. Covered by insurance which was less than one day rate.
Retrospective unlikely (for now) but then again its unlikely I'll ever get a gas leak at home and my house explodes. Either way I'd rather know I'm covered financially.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostHmmm. Risky.... Not sure I'd be keen.
You could get insurance - people like QDOS will cover you for things like this i.e. retrospective claims. If I remember correctly few hundred £. For me this would be a no brainer.
Not saying HMRC will do this but who knows. And of course, if they ask client first thing they'll say is "yes its same role, so?"
Still seems like a waste of money to me and it's been said a couple of times that retrospective investigations are unlikely, but it is still a risk that some will want to minimise.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by contractbunny8 View PostUpdate on this is the agency have confirmed I'll be going back to the SAME ROLE, so I guess this could add a lot of weight if HMRC want to do retrospective 'Inside IR35' investigations into the 2 years I was there previously?
You could get insurance - people like QDOS will cover you for things like this i.e. retrospective claims. If I remember correctly few hundred £. For me this would be a no brainer.
Not saying HMRC will do this but who knows. And of course, if they ask client first thing they'll say is "yes its same role, so?"
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by contractbunny8 View Post
1) Can the HMRC back date the 'Inside IR35' to my contract earlier which was 'Outside IR35'? - I was there as outside close to 2 years, and on going back will be working under the same manager, but on a completely different role.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostClosing the company opens a whole new can of worms as, depending on your situation, you may have problems starting a new one 'in the same trade' due to new rules.
If you claim ER and then continue in the same trade then the uncertainty starts, particularly over whether taking on employment counts as continuing in the same trade or not.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostHave you been drinking???
http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...al-forums.html
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: