You are unlikely to get what you want. They don't even know what CEST is going to look like in 12 months. Few clients are really ready to make this determination yet, and they are not going to want to tie their hands on it. They don't even know if they'll be happy to have you around that long, why should they bother to go through the hassle? You're on your way to sending your CV to their shredder.
I'm not sure why you want it. It's 12 months away. You don't know, either, that you'll be around that long. Maybe they'll hate you. Maybe you'll hate them. Why borrow trouble? This would make sense if it is a 6 month contract next January. It doesn't make much sense right now.
If you want to do something about it now, give them a notification that:
1. If the IR35 reform currently being consulted comes in April 2020....
2. If you are still under contract to them....
3. If they fail to make a determination at that time that your role is outside IR35....
4. Then you will give notice and leave the role. Depending on circumstances, you might be willing to renew at a higher rate to compensate you for the additional tax to which they would be subjecting you. But you won't work under these terms if they decide to inflict extra tax on you.
I suspect that accomplishes what you want without being such a pain that they'll just get someone else.
Does this contract even go past next 5 April? If not, this is NOT the time to be asking the question. To do so implies some Mutuality of Obligation to renew. I don't think you want to go there. This is really only appropriate if the contract on offer runs into next April. Otherwise, this is a question to raise at renewal time.
If they ARE offering you a 12 month contract, you can raise the issue by asking to have it terminate 31 March 2019, and 'that lets us both assess how the coming IR35 reforms are going to affect contract terms in the new tax year.'
That puts them on notice that something is out there without making a huge deal of it right now. Nobody wants it to be a huge deal right now, especially since it's just possible that Theresa May and Spreadsheet Phil might become backbenchers and we might get a Chancellor of the Exchequer who isn't trying to commit economic suicide, and puts a hold on this lunacy.
- 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!
Reply to: New Contract - ex-IR35 guarantees?
Collapse
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 "New Contract - ex-IR35 guarantees?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Hamlet View PostSo where I'm coming from is - the new legislation asks clients to take a *view* on the arrangements, wrt IR35. They've never had to do this before.
While, yes, you're right, the reality is the reality, and HMRC could in principle challenge even a shared view held by both client and contractor, it nonetheless seems valuable to clarify at the outset what the client's view actually is. It's that that I would like a "guarantee" on, the client's view.
There is also another angle to this. RoS is one of the main pillars, albeit not the strongest, and we rely on the fact it's in the contract but never got invoked so our argument is it is available but was never tested. Some cases are just calling the arrangement out as a sham, which is true in most cases TBH, but unless it's tested then the contract clause stands. Now if you go to a client with a CoA and they turn round and say 'Well we wouldn't really let you substitute' you now KNOW it's a sham and you've just destroyed your own IR35 defence. Sometimes it's better not to say anything and rely on the fact it's available but not tested.
IMO, reading between the lines of your posts, particularly the last sentence below, a much better defence would be for you to get a much better grasp of IR35 and keep yourself outside.
I think it has started to happen in Public Sector that clients state their view at outset? That they explicitly advertise certain roles as being outside?
You can't handle IR35 with documents, tick boxes and 'you think' I am afraid.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by northernladuk View PostTo make clients aware then you need to be even more aware. Quoting terms like ex IR35 and thinking a piece of paper is a guarantee is not a very good start. Anyone with even a basic understanding will know that working practices trump any paperwork.
If it were this easy do you not think it would have been in place already?
While, yes, you're right, the reality is the reality, and HMRC could in principle challenge even a shared view held by both client and contractor, it nonetheless seems valuable to clarify at the outset what the client's view actually is. It's that that I would like a "guarantee" on, the client's view.
I think it has started to happen in Public Sector that clients state their view at outset? That they explicitly advertise certain roles as being outside?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simes View PostBearing in mind my, admittedly, very limited foray into asking my current agency what their thoughts are on all matters one year hence, and getting very little back by way of Any meaningful knowledge, I am curious as to why you would want to scupper the possibility of a contract for 12 months' jam over an argument that an agency might really not be prepared about which to have any sort of discussion.
Why not take the contract, and spend the next year educating from the inside?
I realise in saying this I have not answered your question. Indeed I won't be able to answer it.
But.. If anyone does want to educate from the inside, please make sure you've got a clue or you are going to cause more problems than you solve
We've got some chump at my current gig that's told one of the client managers their 2 year rule is IR35 linked and led him up the wrong path.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hamlet View PostHi,
Am likely to receive an offer from a new client in next day or two, but I'm inclined to accept it only if they can provide some sort of guarantee that they will view it as an ex-IR35 arrangement come next April.
Anyone any views on an appropriate legal form for this?
EG
- an accompanying letter explicitly referencing the intermediaries legislation?
- simply a water tight (unfettered) substitution clause?
Etc
My thinking is - even if they're not ready to do this, I am happy to walk away. And at least if more of us start making clients aware now that taking an adverse view on IR35 will have an effect on their ability to hire, it can only help shape the direction the market takes.
If it were this easy do you not think it would have been in place already?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostWhat on Earth do you mean 'ex-IR35'??
Everything is IR35 - you are either inside or outside, and that is dependant on the contract and the working practices.
IPSE has a Letter of Arrangement that sets out what you posted, but it has no legal standing. You could try that.
My thought is to get them to clarify that up front, not wait for next April.
What I'm imagining I guess is that should they say next April "we think this arrangement is inside IR35", that I can produce a piece of paper, saying"but we agreed the exact opposite at the time of signing the contract, and this was our reasoning."
Leave a comment:
-
And I always thought getting contractors together was like herding cats. Good to see some people will stand up and be counted.
Leave a comment:
-
Bearing in mind my, admittedly, very limited foray into asking my current agency what their thoughts are on all matters one year hence, and getting very little back by way of Any meaningful knowledge, I am curious as to why you would want to scupper the possibility of a contract for 12 months' jam over an argument that an agency might really not be prepared about which to have any sort of discussion.
Why not take the contract, and spend the next year educating from the inside?
I realise in saying this I have not answered your question. Indeed I won't be able to answer it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hamlet View PostHi,
Am likely to receive an offer from a new client in next day or two, but I'm inclined to accept it only if they can provide some sort of guarantee that they will view it as an ex-IR35 arrangement come next April.
Anyone any views on an appropriate legal form for this?
EG
- an accompanying letter explicitly referencing the intermediaries legislation?
- simply a water tight (unfettered) substitution clause?
Etc
My thinking is - even if they're not ready to do this, I am happy to walk away. And at least if more of us start making clients aware now that taking an adverse view on IR35 will have an effect on their ability to hire, it can only help shape the direction the market takes.
Everything is IR35 - you are either inside or outside, and that is dependant on the contract and the working practices.
IPSE has a Letter of Arrangement that sets out what you posted, but it has no legal standing. You could try that.
Leave a comment:
-
New Contract - ex-IR35 guarantees?
Hi,
Am likely to receive an offer from a new client in next day or two, but I'm inclined to accept it only if they can provide some sort of guarantee that they will view it as an ex-IR35 arrangement come next April.
Anyone any views on an appropriate legal form for this?
EG
- an accompanying letter explicitly referencing the intermediaries legislation?
- simply a water tight (unfettered) substitution clause?
Etc
My thinking is - even if they're not ready to do this, I am happy to walk away. And at least if more of us start making clients aware now that taking an adverse view on IR35 will have an effect on their ability to hire, it can only help shape the direction the market takes.Tags: None
- 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: