Reply to: A blind eye?

[northernladuk]

until a new manager comes along and changes the contractor to inside just because.
I'd always keep my insurances current.

It doesn't generally work like that in the PS. I'd keep my insurance current because I wouldn't expect to be there too long and may need it for previous contracts before the PS one but not for the reason you state there to be fair.

[Lance]

If I understand correctly, this can only be good for the contractor because the tax debt belongs to the engager under the new rules if a contractor is declared by the engager as outside IR35? Quids in, no need for IPSE or QDOS fees.

until a new manager comes along and changes the contractor to inside just because.
I'd always keep my insurances current.

[Fred Bloggs]

I can well believe a Government Department would put someone outside of IR35 if they deemed them too important to lose (of which a DV contractor certainly might be) but how the HMRC see it is another story.

If I understand correctly, this can only be good for the contractor because the tax debt belongs to the engager under the new rules if a contractor is declared by the engager as outside IR35? Quids in, no need for IPSE or QDOS fees.

[mike67]

An accountant friend told her recently that one of his clients had told him that Contractors working at an intelligence agency in south west England were leaving at unprecedented rates/numbers and that to stem the flow HMRC were not enforcing IR35! He went on to say nothing was formalised, (nothing in writing. etc.) I wonder if could this be true, has anyone else heard of this? Or is it nonsense?

When HMRC brought in the new public sector IR35 rules, they said that they would apply to all organisations covered by the Freedom of Information Act. Guess what - intelligence agencies are not covered by the act (for obvious reasons). So yes it is correct, the public sector IR35 rules would not apply to a certain doughnut shaped organisation. Some have speculated (probably correctly) that the reason for using FOI to determine whether or not the rules applied was specifically to allow intel agencies to be exempted.

[mudskipper]

I can well believe a Government Department would put someone outside of IR35 if they deemed them too important to lose (of which a DV contractor certainly might be) but how the HMRC see it is another story.

But that's OK as long as they ensure that the working practices reflect that status.

[SussexSeagull]

I can well believe a Government Department would put someone outside of IR35 if they deemed them too important to lose (of which a DV contractor certainly might be) but how the HMRC see it is another story.

[fannyadams]

We've had plenty in the past but not aware of any recent instances (i.e. post 6th April).

Thanks - maybe it was old news then.

[Qdos Contractor]

Slightly OT, but I heard that some ex-HMRC contractors are facing IR35 investigations - is this something you're aware of?

We've had plenty in the past but not aware of any recent instances (i.e. post 6th April).

[fannyadams]

Bear in mind that the off payroll rules only apply to organisations covered by the FOI act. Some agencies naturally fall outside of that.

Slightly OT, but I heard that some ex-HMRC contractors are facing IR35 investigations - is this something you're aware of?

[Qdos Contractor]

Bear in mind that the off payroll rules only apply to organisations covered by the FOI act. Some agencies naturally fall outside of that.

[TheFaQQer]

I can't believe this. IR35 is always there, it's a tax law. Whether they were ignoring the inside/outside argument maybe but not enforcing IR35 doesn't make sense. Personally I'd completely ignore it as unfounded tittle tattle.

AFAIK HMRC have increased the number of staff available to pursue IR35 investigations, with a specific aim to increase the number of active investigations significantly from previous levels. I would be astounded if they were now making a decision to not enforce IR35.

As you say, it's tax law - and if HMRC think they can get money from it, they will chase for it.

[northernladuk]

My partner was a contractor with her own Ltd company prior to IR35 rearing its ugly head. She is now working under an umbrella company. An accountant friend told her recently that one of his clients had told him that Contractors working at an intelligence agency in south west England were leaving at unprecedented rates/numbers and that to stem the flow HMRC were not enforcing IR35! He went on to say nothing was formalised, (nothing in writing. etc.) I wonder if could this be true, has anyone else heard of this? Or is it nonsense? How could one find out.. FOI act? Assuming it was true could the information be used for the benefit of other contractors suffering under IR35.

I can't believe this. IR35 is always there, it's a tax law. Whether they were ignoring the inside/outside argument maybe but not enforcing IR35 doesn't make sense. Personally I'd completely ignore it as unfounded tittle tattle.

[TheFaQQer]

I have long wondered how the HMRC could investigate a DV role (which working for an intelligence agency probably is). Unless they have a special unit for dealing with such roles I can't imagine the client or contractor can really say too much about what they do day to day!

Which makes it a touch easier for HMRC to make sweeping assumptions that are hard to disprove.

Some years back, I was working with someone who claimed to have lost his IR35 case because GCHQ wouldn't help his defence at all. Whether his claim is true or not, I don't know, but that was his story.

[northernladuk]

I have long wondered how the HMRC could investigate a DV role (which working for an intelligence agency probably is). Unless they have a special unit for dealing with such roles I can't imagine the client or contractor can really say too much about what they do day to day!

They can discuss the working conditions and contractual situation which what the status is based on.

[SussexSeagull]

I have long wondered how the HMRC could investigate a DV role (which working for an intelligence agency probably is). Unless they have a special unit for dealing with such roles I can't imagine the client or contractor can really say too much about what they do day to day!