Two scenarios.
Both start with cast iron outside determination pre-April - working practices confirmed by client, QDOS-confirmed outside contract, nice evidence emails, etc.
Post-April:
1/ Accept the compensatory rate hike, but get a totally different contract referring to line manager, holidays, etc. Behave like a perm, too, taking advantage of staff discount offers where you can and so on - may as well take all the benefits that you can if you're inside.
2/ Try and aim for the outside determination but risk HMRC backtracking to pre-April determination because the contract and working practices look the same.
Personally, I'd go for option 1, demonstrating clear differences in your new method of engagement, especially if you can gather evidence that completely goes against your outside emails. Does the client understand that if you're inside, you should be treated differently?
- 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!
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 "Possible defense against retrospective investigation."
Collapse
-
Originally posted by BlueSharp View PostI think the real risk is you get hit with a APN for the previous years at the same organisation. Of course this will once HMRC win their first outside >> Inside permitractor switch.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by smatty View PostFor me this was a big factor, even if you have legal and liability cover you still get dragged through a potentially lengthy, stressful and time consuming investigation where the outcome is not clear. You may be ultimately in the right, but personally I could do without that in my life!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NeedTheSunshine View PostYes you can go to court against HMRC via tax tribunal. Takes years, costs £££££.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by simes View PostI think so too. But at this stage, all this is untested or uncharted waters.
Bearing in mind in times past, once contractors were investigated by the HMRC, they had to go to court to get the proof, courtesy of legal minds instead of whatever shining lights pass for the HMRC minds. So too will it be necessary for the HMRC to lose a few rounds in court against the clients once they are investigated (if in fact there are any clients To investigate...!).
And to be frank, if Qdos has already passed as being fit for consumption a contract and working condition to be Outside, and then come April an arbitrary and random decision is made by the client to stick the contractor Inside, if as and when a route to court becomes available, it might be the contractor who has to instigate court proceedings.
I don't know if such a route to court is obviously available right now, but it will need a few rounds to include HMRC defeats and Client Decision reversals before we get to a position of sense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pscont View PostSeriously, I think it will be very hard to show that pre-April contact was out of IR35, once client says it is inside (albeit for period after April).
Bearing in mind in times past, once contractors were investigated by the HMRC, they had to go to court to get the proof, courtesy of legal minds instead of whatever shining lights pass for the HMRC minds. So too will it be necessary for the HMRC to lose a few rounds in court against the clients once they are investigated (if in fact there are any clients To investigate...!).
And to be frank, if Qdos has already passed as being fit for consumption a contract and working condition to be Outside, and then come April an arbitrary and random decision is made by the client to stick the contractor Inside, if as and when a route to court becomes available, it might be the contractor who has to instigate court proceedings.
I don't know if such a route to court is obviously available right now, but it will need a few rounds to include HMRC defeats and Client Decision reversals before we get to a position of sense.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View PostI've already ironed this out with QDOS for my own personal position. They are prepared to cover me because they have assessed my current contract as outside.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostYes, but it would have to occur in reality. If you’re doing the same thing in the same way, the risk is there, regardless of what the earlier contract said.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View PostI've already ironed this out with QDOS for my own personal position. They are prepared to cover me because they have assessed my current contract as outside.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View Postagreed, but if there were major changes in the working practises, then this would be the case.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostFor insurance purposes, there must be a reasonable prospect of success. In the circumstances you describe, there probably isn’t. You would be in a weak position, unless the client had not taken reasonable care with the SDS.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostExtremely unlikely without a dramatic change in working practices or negligence with the SDS (and there wouldn’t be if QDOS were involved).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View PostSo it would be perfectly possible for the client to decide that the role is inside from April and not compromise a pre April outside assessment.
Leave a comment:
-
For insurance purposes, there must be a reasonable prospect of success. In the circumstances you describe, there probably isn’t. You would be in a weak position, unless the client had not taken reasonable care with the SDS.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pscont View PostSeriously, I think it will be very hard to show that pre-April contact was out of IR35, once client says it is inside (albeit for period after April).
Leave a comment:
- 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: