• 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.

Previously on "Gov Facility Services gets IR35 status wrong"

Collapse

  • simes
    replied
    All,

    Herewith. Arrived today.

    1. The nature of the challenge
    That the initial CEST off-payroll decision did not sufficiently consider the exact nature of the role that individual contractors would be undertaking, particularly in relation to Direction and Control.

    2. The source of the challenge – this is not clear, but guessing to be HMRC
    The MoJ Tax Centre of Excellence recommended a review of the tax status of all off-payroll workers.

    3. The exact nature of the advice and guidance provided by the MoJ
    In respect of Direction and Control - that GFSL did have some limited control over the day to day work of contractors, for example the requirement to attend update meetings on GFSL premises at a time scheduled by GFSL

    Unless I am misunderstanding this, it seems that the contractors have been scuppered from within.

    As for the essence of control being defined by being asked to attend a meeting not of your making or your time...! The word 'excessive' comes first to mind.

    Coming second to mind are a whole host of other words.

    Thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    Had the same reply through last night.

    At this stage I think we can legitimately request further details on points 4 and 5 regarding the nature of the challenge, including it's source and the exact nature of the advice and guidance provided by the MoJ.
    Done. Will revert once received.

    Best.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    Hello DaveB,

    Very well done. Subsequent to your 'straight off the mark' input, the questions being sent, we now have a reply.

    Please find below. I am not sure if there is evidence of the HMRC NOT standing by the output of their CessPool, sorry, CEST Tool. It depends on from whom the Challenge came, before they took the advice of the MoJ. Would the Challenge and Advice come from one and the same? Challenge from HMRC followed by Advice from MoJ? Thoughts?

    Am happy to follow up...

    ...
    Had the same reply through last night.

    At this stage I think we can legitimately request further details on points 4 and 5 regarding the nature of the challenge, including it's source and the exact nature of the advice and guidance provided by the MoJ.

    Regarding Eek's point above, that needs to be passed to someone better placed to challenge the potential blanket assessment by role and use of CEST. This would need to be a larger body such as IPSE. For all it's limitations it does have the resources and contacts to challenge this, especially if one of the contractors affected was a member willing to take it up with their support. Complaints from individuals not affected by it are likely to be ignored or fobbed off.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Point 4 is incorrect. It's perfectly possible for 2 people to be performing the same role but the way they work being different enough that one is inside IR35 and 1 is outside.

    If they have determined things based on a job role by job role basis it is a blanket approach which is incorrect.

    It's worth emphasising this as the biggest reason why 2 people doing the same role will have different outcomes is due to Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) and MOO is the biggest flaw in the CEST tool as HMRC don't believe in it.
    It's perfectly possible for 2 people to be performing the same role but the way they work being different enough that one is inside IR35 and 1 is outside
    .

    HMRC have now changed this propaganda approach to "two people earning the same income".

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    Hello DaveB,

    Very well done. Subsequent to your 'straight off the mark' input, the questions being sent, we now have a reply.

    Please find below. I am not sure if there is evidence of the HMRC NOT standing by the output of their CessPool, sorry, CEST Tool. It depends on from whom the Challenge came, before they took the advice of the MoJ. Would the Challenge and Advice come from one and the same? Challenge from HMRC followed by Advice from MoJ? Thoughts?

    Am happy to follow up...


    Dear Mr [Simes]

    Your request for information has now been considered and the information requested provided below.

    "GFSL employed a large number of contractors throughout the period, some of whom were engaged off-payroll. GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope of IR35. Following further advice, it has now been determined that these individuals should have been treated as inside the scope of IR35 and action has been taken to rectify this treatment.

    As GFSL is a public sector body, responsibility for the historic liability for any underpaid tax sits with GFSL, rather than the individual."

    Please provide details of:

    1. The process followed,
    GFSL as the engager took all reasonable care to determine the employment status of all of its contractors at the point of engagement. This involved reviewing role requirements in line with GFSL and HMRC guidance and the HMRC Website including the checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup

    2. The resources referred to,
    The main source of guidance was the HMRC Website including the HMRC employment status checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup
    advice and guidance from MoJ’s tax expert advisors.

    3. The basis for the original judgements
    GFSL as the engager undertook all process activities in accordance with published guidance, legislation and through the use of the Check Employment Status to arrive at the original judgement. These can be accessed via the Gov.uk website: off-payroll working in the public sector: reform of the intermediaries legislation - Gov. uk

    4. The “Further advice” received,
    A challenge received determined that a review of the principles against the job role be considered to determine if the off-payroll principles were applicable.

    5. The source of that advice,
    Advice and guidance from MoJ’s tax centre of excellence

    6. How that advice impacted the process
    Further analysis was undertaken to consider the advice provided which informed a change in employment status

    7. The basis on which the revised judgement,
    Roles were reviewed against the principles using the HMRC employment status checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup

    Kind regards
    Yours sincerely
    I am not sure if there is evidence of the HMRC NOT standing by the output of their CessPool, sorry, CEST Tool.
    check out the Alcock case where HMRC tried to prevent evidence from the CEST tool being submitted in court.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    Hello DaveB,

    Very well done. Subsequent to your 'straight off the mark' input, the questions being sent, we now have a reply.

    Please find below. I am not sure if there is evidence of the HMRC NOT standing by the output of their CessPool, sorry, CEST Tool. It depends on from whom the Challenge came, before they took the advice of the MoJ. Would the Challenge and Advice come from one and the same? Challenge from HMRC followed by Advice from MoJ? Thoughts?

    Am happy to follow up...


    Dear Mr [Simes]

    Your request for information has now been considered and the information requested provided below.

    "GFSL employed a large number of contractors throughout the period, some of whom were engaged off-payroll. GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope of IR35. Following further advice, it has now been determined that these individuals should have been treated as inside the scope of IR35 and action has been taken to rectify this treatment.

    As GFSL is a public sector body, responsibility for the historic liability for any underpaid tax sits with GFSL, rather than the individual."

    Please provide details of:

    1. The process followed,
    GFSL as the engager took all reasonable care to determine the employment status of all of its contractors at the point of engagement. This involved reviewing role requirements in line with GFSL and HMRC guidance and the HMRC Website including the checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup

    2. The resources referred to,
    The main source of guidance was the HMRC Website including the HMRC employment status checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup
    advice and guidance from MoJ’s tax expert advisors.

    3. The basis for the original judgements
    GFSL as the engager undertook all process activities in accordance with published guidance, legislation and through the use of the Check Employment Status to arrive at the original judgement. These can be accessed via the Gov.uk website: off-payroll working in the public sector: reform of the intermediaries legislation - Gov. uk

    4. The “Further advice” received,
    A challenge received determined that a review of the principles against the job role be considered to determine if the off-payroll principles were applicable.

    5. The source of that advice,
    Advice and guidance from MoJ’s tax centre of excellence

    6. How that advice impacted the process
    Further analysis was undertaken to consider the advice provided which informed a change in employment status

    7. The basis on which the revised judgement,
    Roles were reviewed against the principles using the HMRC employment status checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup

    Kind regards
    Yours sincerely

    Point 4 is incorrect. It's perfectly possible for 2 people to be performing the same role but the way they work being different enough that one is inside IR35 and 1 is outside.

    If they have determined things based on a job role by job role basis it is a blanket approach which is incorrect.

    It's worth emphasising this as the biggest reason why 2 people doing the same role will have different outcomes is due to Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) and MOO is the biggest flaw in the CEST tool as HMRC don't believe in it.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    As a public sector body you could submit and FOI request for that info. As far as I can tell they sit under the MOJ but I can't find any on-line contact forms etc for them.

    UPDATE : Found their website - Home

    Googling for Government Facilities Service returns pretty much everything to do with them part from that link. Ended up finding them on LinkedIn and getting the URL from there.

    Email contact address [email protected]

    Quick and dirty draft of an FOI request:
    Hello DaveB,

    Very well done. Subsequent to your 'straight off the mark' input, the questions being sent, we now have a reply.

    Please find below. I am not sure if there is evidence of the HMRC NOT standing by the output of their CessPool, sorry, CEST Tool. It depends on from whom the Challenge came, before they took the advice of the MoJ. Would the Challenge and Advice come from one and the same? Challenge from HMRC followed by Advice from MoJ? Thoughts?

    Am happy to follow up...


    Dear Mr [Simes]

    Your request for information has now been considered and the information requested provided below.

    "GFSL employed a large number of contractors throughout the period, some of whom were engaged off-payroll. GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope of IR35. Following further advice, it has now been determined that these individuals should have been treated as inside the scope of IR35 and action has been taken to rectify this treatment.

    As GFSL is a public sector body, responsibility for the historic liability for any underpaid tax sits with GFSL, rather than the individual."

    Please provide details of:

    1. The process followed,
    GFSL as the engager took all reasonable care to determine the employment status of all of its contractors at the point of engagement. This involved reviewing role requirements in line with GFSL and HMRC guidance and the HMRC Website including the checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup

    2. The resources referred to,
    The main source of guidance was the HMRC Website including the HMRC employment status checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup
    advice and guidance from MoJ’s tax expert advisors.

    3. The basis for the original judgements
    GFSL as the engager undertook all process activities in accordance with published guidance, legislation and through the use of the Check Employment Status to arrive at the original judgement. These can be accessed via the Gov.uk website: off-payroll working in the public sector: reform of the intermediaries legislation - Gov. uk

    4. The “Further advice” received,
    A challenge received determined that a review of the principles against the job role be considered to determine if the off-payroll principles were applicable.

    5. The source of that advice,
    Advice and guidance from MoJ’s tax centre of excellence

    6. How that advice impacted the process
    Further analysis was undertaken to consider the advice provided which informed a change in employment status

    7. The basis on which the revised judgement,
    Roles were reviewed against the principles using the HMRC employment status checking tool https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/check...-for-tax/setup

    Kind regards
    Yours sincerely

    Leave a comment:


  • jds 1981
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    Ok, very impressed!

    Incredibly so, that I have just sent your very email to them.

    If I get anything back, I will pop it up here.

    All the best.
    Perhaps better to have done through WhatDoTheyKnow - Make and browse Freedom of Information (FOI) requests As it then becomes easily accessible to all.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Ok, very impressed!

    Incredibly so, that I have just sent your very email to them.

    If I get anything back, I will pop it up here.

    All the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohntheBike
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    As a public sector body you could submit and FOI request for that info. As far as I can tell they sit under the MOJ but I can't find any on-line contact forms etc for them.

    UPDATE : Found their website - Home

    Googling for Government Facilities Service returns pretty much everything to do with them part from that link. Ended up finding them on LinkedIn and getting the URL from there.

    Email contact address [email protected]

    Quick and dirty draft of an FOI request:
    you could submit and FOI request for that info
    it would be better if one of our "representative" organisations did this. But then IPSE doesn't seem to be interested in FOI's. Dave Chaplin might though.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by simes View Post
    I would love to know what all those resources were.

    If the contractors were ruled outside, almost by definition, that rules out the use of the CEST 'resource'.

    So if not that, did GFSL utilise some other more, impartial advice? And if so, what?
    As a public sector body you could submit and FOI request for that info. As far as I can tell they sit under the MOJ but I can't find any on-line contact forms etc for them.

    UPDATE : Found their website - Home

    Googling for Government Facilities Service returns pretty much everything to do with them part from that link. Ended up finding them on LinkedIn and getting the URL from there.

    Email contact address [email protected]

    Quick and dirty draft of an FOI request:

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I wish to request information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the process and supporting information used to determine IR35 status for contractors employed off payroll as described in your annual report published in October this year.

    "GFSL employed a large number of contractors throughout the period, some of whom were engaged off-payroll. GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in
    scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope
    of IR35. Following further advice, it has now been determined that these individuals should have been treated as inside the scope of IR35 and action has been taken to rectify this treatment.
    As GFSL is a public sector body, responsibility for the historic liability for any underpaid tax sits with GFSL, rather than the individual."

    Please provide details of:

    1. The process followed,
    2. The resources referred to,
    3. The basis for the original judgements
    4. The “Further advice” received,
    5. The source of that advice,
    6. How that advice impacted the process
    7. The basis on which the revised judgement, previously judged out of scope was arrived at.

    Regards,
    Last edited by DaveB; 28 October 2019, 10:01.

    Leave a comment:


  • simes
    replied
    Originally posted by krytonsheep View Post
    "GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope.
    I would love to know what all those resources were.

    If the contractors were ruled outside, almost by definition, that rules out the use of the CEST 'resource'.

    So if not that, did GFSL utilise some other more, impartial advice? And if so, what?

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by krytonsheep View Post
    "GFSL employed a large number of contractors throughout the period, some of whom were engaged off-payroll. GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in
    scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope
    of IR35. Following further advice, it has now been determined that these individuals should have been treated as inside the scope of IR35 and action has been taken to rectify this treatment.
    As GFSL is a public sector body, responsibility for the historic liability for any underpaid tax sits with GFSL, rather than the individual.
    "

    Page 92
    Gov Facility Services Limited Annual Report October 2019

    I'm guessing when it says historic liability, it just means up to when the IR35 public sector reform took place.
    "Following further advice..." After a visit from HMRC

    Leave a comment:


  • krytonsheep
    started a topic Gov Facility Services gets IR35 status wrong

    Gov Facility Services gets IR35 status wrong

    "GFSL employed a large number of contractors throughout the period, some of whom were engaged off-payroll. GFSL used all available resources to judge whether contractors were in
    scope for IR35, and informed the agencies through which these contractors had been recruited of their IR35 status. These initial reviews identified a number of individuals as out of the scope
    of IR35. Following further advice, it has now been determined that these individuals should have been treated as inside the scope of IR35 and action has been taken to rectify this treatment.
    As GFSL is a public sector body, responsibility for the historic liability for any underpaid tax sits with GFSL, rather than the individual.
    "

    Page 92
    Gov Facility Services Limited Annual Report October 2019

    I'm guessing when it says historic liability, it just means up to when the IR35 public sector reform took place.

Working...
X