Reply to: New CEST

[GhostofTarbera]

I pulled the matrix files together for easy reference.

CEST matrix - Google Sheets

The notes are mine, so subject to error.

Nice one miss


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[mudskipper]

I pulled the matrix files together for easy reference.

CEST matrix - Google Sheets

The notes are mine, so subject to error.

[CheeseSlice]

I found that the "new contract or formal working arrangement" bit would determine outside always.
Always get an updated contract schedule before doing any new work...

Thats great but a client will be running the 'hirer' questions independently and plugging in values through a different lens. Unless they're clued up and have read the contract, they may believe they can just agree extra work in person with you, unless its an existing contract where you have been very firm about this before.

[Lance]

I tried this out with a few scenarios.

The Sub one is obviously outside IR35.

Then I chose No Sub + Client can reject Sub. I went through the rest of the questions in a solid out-of-IR35 way (i.e. "No, that would require a new contract or formal working arrangement" and "No, you solely decide") and CEST actually gave me an outside determination. I was surprised.

But then I changed one little thing on this question:
Does your client have the right to move you from the task you originally agreed to do?
I changed the answer from No, that would require a new contract or formal working arrangement to No, you would have to agree … and suddenly I am determined INSIDE IR35!

Looks like the determination will hinge on the slightest thing, unless you have a silver bullet Sub.

I found that the "new contract or formal working arrangement" bit would determine outside always.
Always get an updated contract schedule before doing any new work...

[genius]

Stuck on the first question, what's the difference?

What do you want to find out?

If the off-payroll working rules (IR35) apply to a contract
If some work is classed as employment or self-employment for tax purposes

[genius]

Access it via a VPN or you'll get an investigation letter through the post next week

[JohntheBike]

Contrived? Designed to get a particular outcome?

Like putting too much emphasis on Substitution which is hard if not impossible in some situations (highly niche skill, short timeframe)

Or contrived like continuing to omit the key pillar - MOO - from the determination?

In other words..
HMRC: This is our game. We can win by rigging and cheating, but you can't because that's not fair.

HMRC: This is our game. We can win by rigging and cheating, but you can't because that's not fair.

precisely! It's always been their game, with their referee using their ball and playing on their pitch.

[JohntheBike]

Bugs me that buying kit and the like is excluded - I've a server, 2 desktops, one at home and one where I stay while working away, a laptop and an old 'spare' that is still refusing to die after almost 10 years! All of them need software and are kept up to date, so I'm signed up to the Action pack and have been for years. Yes these costs are not taken into account as part of the assessment.

these costs are not taken into account as part of the assessment

this has always been deliberate on the part of HMRC and aptly demonstrates that irrespective of who else has been targeted by IR35, it has always been IT contractors who were the main target. Does a self employed painter and decorator invest in substantially more equipment than you have? I guess not.

[eek]

Dave Chaplin reversed engineered the new tool and his comments are at Dave Chaplin on LinkedIn: "CEST UPDATE: Are the changes any good?



Equally the CEST tool is HMRC's opinion of IR35 see Rebecca Seeley Harris on LinkedIn: "See my article on AccountingWeb on the new CEST updates and guidance.

The tool is biased but, it's meant to be because it is HMRC's view of status.

#employmentstatus #offpayroll #ir35" and HMRC think MOO is irrelevant - so they ignore it (the fact they always lose under it is neither here nor there in their eyes).

[CheeseSlice]

HMRC will also not stand by results achieved through contrived arrangements, designed to get a particular outcome from the service. This would be treated as evidence of deliberate non-compliance, which can attract higher associated penalties

Contrived? Designed to get a particular outcome?

Like putting too much emphasis on Substitution which is hard if not impossible in some situations (highly niche skill, short timeframe)

Or contrived like continuing to omit the key pillar - MOO - from the determination?

In other words..
HMRC: This is our game. We can win by rigging and cheating, but you can't because that's not fair.

[woboogie]

Quite possibly.

Without having delved into this more deeply just yet, already (I use the word advisedly and with not a little humour) it is looking a lot fairer.

Maybe now, if clients are asked to use this tool, and so long as they don't game-play it to secure an Inside verdict thereby assuring a risk free and, with the HMRC, communication free existence, we might already be on a surer footing.

A bold and premature statement??

And now, for the dissenters to that theory, let the games commence...

From the couple of goes i had at it, i tend to agree. If you can substitute, I assume its no longer seen as a PSC type contract.

[simes]

It is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.

Quite possibly.

Without having delved into this more deeply just yet, already (I use the word advisedly and with not a little humour) it is looking a lot fairer.

Maybe now, if clients are asked to use this tool, and so long as they don't game-play it to secure an Inside verdict thereby assuring a risk free and, with the HMRC, communication free existence, we might already be on a surer footing.

A bold and premature statement??

And now, for the dissenters to that theory, let the games commence...

[BoredBloke]

It is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.

Bugs me that buying kit and the like is excluded - I've a server, 2 desktops, one at home and one where I stay while working away, a laptop and an old 'spare' that is still refusing to die after almost 10 years! All of them need software and are kept up to date, so I'm signed up to the Action pack and have been for years. Yes these costs are not taken into account as part of the assessment.

[ladymuck]

I've just tried it saying the client could reject a sub, still came out fine (Outside) with all else properly answered...

It is possible to get outside with a vetoed sub. I think things like having to buy stuff before you get reimbursed weigh highly.

[simes]

I've just tried it saying the client could reject a sub, still came out fine (Outside) with all else properly answered...