• 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.

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 "IR35 determination - EY Confirm Tool"

Collapse

  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
    Yes I have to agree that the reasoning is very weak.

    But if the client accepts it, then the risk is on them and not on you. Unless perhaps you're carrying any retrospective risk at this client.

    Either way it's good you have it!
    It is a new client. Only been there a few weeks.

    Leave a comment:


  • WordIsBond
    replied
    Not sure why you think the reasoning is weak:
    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
    Exercise an adequate level of control over how, what or where you work. Not dictated by Client X
    Not controlled in "how" you do the work is a strong outside pointer.
    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
    There is financial risk during the engagement with Client X
    The contractor is not integrated into Client X's business
    There is no significant notice period written into the contract with Client X
    The company is permitted to deliver services for other clients whilst still working with Client X
    These may not be strong indicators on their own, but in support of the lack of SDC, it says he's not part and parcel, MoO is limited, and he's in business for himself. No one of those would put him outside but the four of them together would make a decent argument, and when you put it with lack of SDC it's pretty clear.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by ChimpMaster View Post
    Yes I have to agree that the reasoning is very weak.

    But if the client accepts it, then the risk is on them and not on you. Unless perhaps you're carrying any retrospective risk at this client.

    Either way it's good you have it!
    Indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChimpMaster
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    I'd be interested to know what they consider financial risk.
    None of those are particulary strong IR35 indicators bar maybe the last one. Have to be careful with working practices around that one though.
    Yes I have to agree that the reasoning is very weak.

    But if the client accepts it, then the risk is on them and not on you. Unless perhaps you're carrying any retrospective risk at this client.

    Either way it's good you have it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    I'd be interested to know what they consider financial risk.
    None of those are particulary strong IR35 indicators bar maybe the last one. Have to be careful with working practices around that one though.
    Not sure really. So they had 8 sections to complete with a number of questions underneath each. I was sent the 8 high level areas but not seen the detail below. I think there is more to the result than that but that was the brief above it.

    I know there are some inside and some outside but not seen what others were given as they have not shared.

    I have tried it via CEST too and got an outside result. Not that it means anything. Also want my results from qdos to see what their view is for my own benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    I'd be interested to know what they consider financial risk.
    None of those are particulary strong IR35 indicators bar maybe the last one. Have to be careful with working practices around that one though.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 13 March 2020, 17:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Sure.

    Some of the points they clarified were:

    Exercise an adequate level of control over how, what or where you work. Not dictated by Client X
    There is financial risk during the engagement with Client X
    The contractor is not integrated into Client X's business
    There is no significant notice period written into the contract with Client X
    The company is permitted to deliver services for other clients whilst still working with Client X

    I have not asked for more information. I would like to see what Qdos state as they did a very detailed one which I completed according to the working practices.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChimpMaster
    replied
    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
    Update for those that were interested. I got my determination from EY and have been classed as outside due to working practices. Still waiting on qdos review after 2 weeks. They said I'm in a queue as they are snowed under. So cannot make a comparison. But the company is abiding by the EY determination and will offer a contract based on that.
    Congrats! Can you detail the reasoning behind the Outside determination? Would be good for everyone to get a better understanding.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Update for those that were interested. I got my determination from EY and have been classed as outside due to working practices. Still waiting on qdos review after 2 weeks. They said I'm in a queue as they are snowed under. So cannot make a comparison. But the company is abiding by the EY determination and will offer a contract based on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    I bet you get good odds on the ones being outside being the ones that they can't do.
    so lots of new offshore resources brought in that can't deliver to the same level. Yay.

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
    Absolutely. This chain makes me feel nervous. Although is this a real sample of all contracts that have been reviewed by EY or just the ones that have resulted in an inside result?
    I bet you get good odds on the ones being outside being the ones that they can't do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    It'll be interesting to see the difference. If you're close enough to the client rep who's answering the tool it would be worth seeing what they answer (or indeed talking to them before they do!)
    Absolutely. This chain makes me feel nervous. Although is this a real sample of all contracts that have been reviewed by EY or just the ones that have resulted in an inside result?

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
    I'm going to embark on a qdos review and a EY review.
    It'll be interesting to see the difference. If you're close enough to the client rep who's answering the tool it would be worth seeing what they answer (or indeed talking to them before they do!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawkeye
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    This is the problem with shifting the determination to a third party who benefits from a given outcome who will happily scare the client with fears of back tax, holiday pay claims, sickpay claims, etc.

    DaveB - has anyone actually received a result yet and does it match a QDOS assessment? I would suspect that the client rep answering their part of the tool is being led to an inside assessment.
    I'm going to embark on a qdos review and a EY review.

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by pacontracting View Post
    and this is the problem with shifting the liability of IR35 onto the client.

    There is no definitive definition of employment but contractors were prepared to take more risk, based on case law, experience and knowledge of their own contracts and HMRC's lack of success in the courts and so on and so would happily fly with an 'undetermined' status or better.

    By moving the liability to the end user, they have a much more risk adverse stance and so the majority of the tools out there are going to reflect this and only accept a definitive 'outside', which is actually pretty strict. The fact these vendors have a resourcing arm is the icing in the cake.

    Once HMRC have destroyed contractors working through Limited Company's, Department for Work and Pensions are going to come after the Disguised Employers (Umbrella's) so the only route open is permanent employment, even if for six months.
    This is the problem with shifting the determination to a third party who benefits from a given outcome who will happily scare the client with fears of back tax, holiday pay claims, sickpay claims, etc.

    DaveB - has anyone actually received a result yet and does it match a QDOS assessment? I would suspect that the client rep answering their part of the tool is being led to an inside assessment.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X