Professional limited company indemnity and public liability inside IR35

[googoo]

To which the response should be to tell them that under the IR35 rules if liability for the work undertaken is passed to you the contract is outside IR35 and the CEST tests should be reran...

I will try that.

Thank you.

[malvolio]

Always good to know professional contractors are keeping up with events in their market, isn't it...

[eek]

Hello,

Through my limited company I am thinking of accepting a role with a local authority. Although initially I was informed by the agency that this was a role outside IR35 at my interview I was told that the local authority had assessed the role inside IR35.

Due to my personal interest in the scope of the offerd role I am tempted to accept it if offered. In my interview though I was told that my company despite being inside IR35 will still be expected to be liable for the work undertaken.

To which the response should be to tell them that under the IR35 rules if liability for the work undertaken is passed to you the contract is outside IR35 and the CEST tests should be reran...

[cojak]

Very simple. You are expected to pay for it out of your taxed salary.

Which means that you might wish to reconsider that contract.

[googoo]

Hello,

Through my limited company I am thinking of accepting a role with a local authority. Although initially I was informed by the agency that this was a role outside IR35 at my interview I was told that the local authority had assessed the role inside IR35.

Due to my personal interest in the scope of the offerd role I am tempted to accept it if offered. In my interview though I was told that my company despite being inside IR35 will still be expected to be liable for the work undertaken.

Other than this potential future contract, my limited company will carry on providing services directly to other bodies and companies not affected by off-payroll regulations and for this reason I always maintain a certain level of PI (5M), employer’s liability and public liability.

Having reviewed the online guidance regarding off-payroll working rules, I noticed that the way the deemed employment payment is calculated for contracts in the private sector is different to the way it is calculated in the public sector as you can see from the guidelines below:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ir35-wha...-if-it-applies <Private sector>

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/off-payr...es-legislation <Public sector>

As a result, it appears that for the same earned revenue someone contracted in the public sector will end up paying more tax compared to one contracted in the private sector, as there doesn’t appear to be any deductions for administrative running costs of the limited company and approved pension deductions in the calculation of the deemed employment payment.

Also if a director of a limited company within year has only one short contract in the public sector inside IR35, loses out in terms of accountancy costs which will still have to be maintained as the next contract may be outside IR35, VAT submission etc..

If my assertion is correct then HMRC in my view is clearly discriminating against contractors in the public sector and against small contractors as the cost of short contracts with no other benefits result in significantly smaller net revenue than permanent employees which enjoy other benefits and greater security.

If someone knows could you please clarify how is a limited company which has accepted a contract inside IR35, supposed to cover the limited company design liability and other insurances, accountancy and other administrative costs when the deemed salary does not appear to cater for it?