Reply to: Another ER implication thread

[CompoundOverload]

Not sure but it's worth a try.

I didn't see this mentioned on the thread you created so thought i'd ask

[cojak]

So if you were to be offered a new engagement with a new client and have the contract reviewed and it's deemed outside by a tax insurer, the client then confirms in writing it's outside after April but then changed their mind later on...

If you had insurance, would the "prospects of success" still stand as you were led to believe this was outside and had this in writing?

In terms of getting the client to agree in writing post April, is there a standard sentence you can use as not sure how I'd draft this as "Please confirm in writing the engagement post April is out of scope from Off-Payroll regulations" would be sufficient?

Not sure but it's worth a try.

[CompoundOverload]

So if you were to be offered a new engagement with a new client and have the contract reviewed and it's deemed outside by a tax insurer, the client then confirms in writing it's outside after April but then changed their mind later on...

If you had insurance, would the "prospects of success" still stand as you were led to believe this was outside and had this in writing?

In terms of getting the client to agree in writing post April, is there a standard sentence you can use as not sure how I'd draft this as "Please confirm in writing the engagement post April is out of scope from Off-Payroll regulations" would be sufficient?

[sim2kuk]

Ahhh....True but I read it the OP is looking for some positives AFTER April. If his role is declared inside now can it be changed to outside later. Theoritically yes, but it won't. If they can't be bothered to do it properly across their whole contractor base once I very much doubt they'll bugger about for a single contractor.

This is if it is judged outside now, and then judged inside nearer April.

This means that our contractor status, potentially 2 years ago, and a contract being signed now, is in the hands of the client, rather than the provider, even before the Private Sector changes go into place.

[northernladuk]

Not sure why you'd say that. I could easily see someone telling him, yes, you'll be outside, and then come March someone in HR or Legal gets nervous and down comes the inside determination.

Ahhh....True but I read it the OP is looking for some positives AFTER April. If his role is declared inside now can it be changed to outside later. Theoritically yes, but it won't. If they can't be bothered to do it properly across their whole contractor base once I very much doubt they'll bugger about for a single contractor.

[WordIsBond]

But they won't.

Not sure why you'd say that. I could easily see someone telling him, yes, you'll be outside, and then come March someone in HR or Legal gets nervous and down comes the inside determination.

[northernladuk]

Yes they can.

But they won't.

[cojak]

If I can get the end client to make a determination on the role now, can they revise that determination at a later date?

Yes they can.

[sim2kuk]

If I can get the end client to make a determination on the role now, can they revise that determination at a later date?

[sim2kuk]

The way in which HMRC select IR35 status reviews is based on a risk algorithm.

Being picked up for a status review on a particular contract does not "automatically" mean that previous (or later) contracts will also be subject to review.

It may be that the status review is started because HMRC has reviewed the roles on offer from a particular end client and has concerns that all those working in department X or recruited for role Y are possibly incorrectly claiming outside IR35 status.

As an example, it is clear that HMRC has identified as potential targets, TV front of camera talent and is going after them all presumably based on some central analysis/opinion that they have arrived at.

This approach of looking at companies operating in certain sectors or types of roles with particular features is far more likely than trying to identify individuals who may (or may not) be inclined to arrive at an incorrect IR35 decision.

Going after one individual at a time is just not efficient. Each investigation apparently takes around 18 months (FOI request answer) and if an officer were to spend an average of 2 hours a month plus supervisory time, HMRC might spend 50 hours on one case. Better to spend that on one company, one sector, one specific type of role? I think so.

Having said all this, if HMRC find that an individual has deliberately made an incorrect outside IR35 call, this will advance their risk score and leave them liable to further investigation.

Thanks for that.

[sim2kuk]

14 months with same client or 14 months contracting?

Same client.

[webberg]

The way in which HMRC select IR35 status reviews is based on a risk algorithm.

Being picked up for a status review on a particular contract does not "automatically" mean that previous (or later) contracts will also be subject to review.

It may be that the status review is started because HMRC has reviewed the roles on offer from a particular end client and has concerns that all those working in department X or recruited for role Y are possibly incorrectly claiming outside IR35 status.

As an example, it is clear that HMRC has identified as potential targets, TV front of camera talent and is going after them all presumably based on some central analysis/opinion that they have arrived at.

This approach of looking at companies operating in certain sectors or types of roles with particular features is far more likely than trying to identify individuals who may (or may not) be inclined to arrive at an incorrect IR35 decision.

Going after one individual at a time is just not efficient. Each investigation apparently takes around 18 months (FOI request answer) and if an officer were to spend an average of 2 hours a month plus supervisory time, HMRC might spend 50 hours on one case. Better to spend that on one company, one sector, one specific type of role? I think so.

Having said all this, if HMRC find that an individual has deliberately made an incorrect outside IR35 call, this will advance their risk score and leave them liable to further investigation.

[northernladuk]

Thanks - so my previous 14 months will not automatically come under scrutiny though as the role has changed and a new contract has been taken.

Essentially it's a should I stay or should I go situation. I don't mind about going inside IR35 in the new role, as it's likely I'll be doing that anyway come April.

14 months with same client or 14 months contracting?

[sim2kuk]

No problem - I've moved it out.

And NLUK has indeed just answered your question.

So that's lovely, isn't it?

It's beautiful, ta!

[sim2kuk]

Taking other peoples posts off topics isn't helpful.

Quick answers are you may be investigated for the current contract that's gone inside. This is IR35 101. IR35 is per contract.

You can shut the company and claim ER yes but you won't be able to open another company for 2 years after so you are stuck with umbrella for 2 years. If you go inside your last 3 months might come under scrutiny because HMRC have you on a list as outside before and inside after so nice and easy for them.

Thanks - so my previous 14 months will not automatically come under scrutiny though as the role has changed and a new contract has been taken.

Essentially it's a should I stay or should I go situation. I don't mind about going inside IR35 in the new role, as it's likely I'll be doing that anyway come April.