Looks like I will go permie with client - best option for me. Package not terrible.
Looking to minimise risk, so have asked for a written assurance that I will be moved from Project A in BU 1 to Project B in BU 2, before I will sign proffered employment contract.
In theory they could just leave me on Project A once I sign employment contract, assurances or no. I suppose I could just leave if that happened.
Hoping that this written assurance will have some value if the GSK incident from last year is scaled up. Not convinced tho. I suspect our dear friends at HMRC would ignore it and focus on facts rather than intentions.
As is most of this, would be an interesting thought experiment if it didn't mess with my life so heavily.
Will not be staying with client in the same role / project as I think that's asking for trouble.
Have already worded up Project A business sponsor to the situation. They offered an "overpaid" permie role which was nice, but not so overpaid that it was worth the risk imho. I will go with less well paid on Project B.
- 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 "Should we be worried about retrospective claims?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by ladymuck View PostI did four agencies with the same client, does that count?
Leave a comment:
-
Speaking as someone involved in the whole BN66 debacle for the last 12 years I would say its pretty much a certainty.
HMRC are tulipe!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by CompoundOverload View PostIt would be easier for them to chase those outside to inside with same client as the data would be readily available to them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostMy twopen'th.
In theory where a role has not materially changed in its function, operation or result but pre April 2020 is outside IR35 and post that date "inside", HMRC would have a strong case for opening an enquiry.
In practice would HMRC have the resources to chase individual circumstances?
Probably not.
More likely I think is HMRC going to the end client and asking how many people being paid as employees or inside IR35 contractors in 2020/21 were being paid as contractors in 2019/20.
This gives HMRC a ready made target list.
However, they still need resource, especially if every case is contested.
I think therefore that only the very obvious cases will be selected.
I can't see why they would go for those continuing to be outside as if the SDS from the client states their reasoning for being outside, why would they want to challenge this for one or two contractors? There won't be a massive pool of outside contractors post April (compared to currently) given most places have done a blanket job / or require CEST et al.
The low hanging fruit IMO are those outside to inside or PAYE with the same client.
Leave a comment:
-
Clearly they'll go after the low-hanging fruit. They'll find a job role, like a PMO Analyst, and give it a try. If they win, they'll then go after all PMO Analysts. I can see them avoiding specialists - someone brought in to introduce a technology to a business for example - because they know that nobody can subject them to SDC because nobody in the client co knows how to do that role.
It's analogous to a burglar looking for the houses with single-glazing, no alarm and easy access to the back garden.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mondeoman View PostWhy not?
You knew you were an employee really, but decided to declare something different, to obtain a financial advantage.
"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right."
You deprived HMRC of the NICs and PAYE that were legally theirs.
But, even if someone did think that (and I'm sure many do), so long as they don't admit it, plausible deniability would come into play.Last edited by Paralytic; 19 February 2020, 08:54.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mondeoman View PostSo lets say I've got a QDOS assessment that says my contract is outside of IR35 and has been since inception. And I've been paying tax etc... accordingly, like a good law-abiding citizen.
Now, the end client has blanket "role assessed" several thousand contractors and assessed them all as inside, on exactly the same contract, and provided SDS's to support that.
For anyone who simply goes onto a new contract via agency or umbrella, is the bar low or high for HMRC for back-tax on the individual? I'm going with low...
The bar is the bar. That's the point. It doesn't vary depending on circumstances, the circumstances determine whether it's crossed.
Was "reasonable care" taken? A contract review suggests: yes.
They will go after the contractor's PSC (I don't think there's much argument about that, only the probability) and, if the PSC has no money and the contractor took reasonable care, it will almost certainly end there.
Leave a comment:
-
So lets say I've got a QDOS assessment that says my contract is outside of IR35 and has been since inception. And I've been paying tax etc... accordingly, like a good law-abiding citizen.
Now, the end client has blanket "role assessed" several thousand contractors and assessed them all as inside, on exactly the same contract, and provided SDS's to support that.
For anyone who simply goes onto a new contract via agency or umbrella, is the bar low or high for HMRC for back-tax on the individual? I'm going with low...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mondeoman View PostWhy not?
You knew you were an employee really, but decided to declare something different, to obtain a financial advantage.
"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right."
You deprived HMRC of the NICs and PAYE that were legally theirs.
Do you not think you would have heard of fraud in discussions around IR35 by now bearing in mind the legislation has been around 20 years?Last edited by northernladuk; 18 February 2020, 21:15.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mondeoman View PostWhy not?
You knew you were an employee really, but decided to declare something different, to obtain a financial advantage.
"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right."
You deprived HMRC of the NICs and PAYE that were legally theirs.
If the individual had knowingly failed to apply PAYE properly (because they knew a contract was inside IR35 and they decided not to operate a deemed payment on the turnover accrued from it), the bar would be exceeded.
In practice, having a contract review indicating an outside determination would be "reasonable care" (below the bar).
Leave a comment:
-
Why not?
You knew you were an employee really, but decided to declare something different, to obtain a financial advantage.
"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right."
You deprived HMRC of the NICs and PAYE that were legally theirs.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mondeoman View PostIsn't the thing though that they can chase the individual, not just the Ltd? If you are now deemed inside, having been outside, aren't you, as the Director, guilty of fraud?
In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.Last edited by northernladuk; 18 February 2020, 20:47.
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: