Reply to: This was the rationale given for my inside IR35 determination when I asked end client

[cojak]

Any examples of this *ever* happening, except in obviously fraudulent cases?

Yes, I would like to see this evidence too, or else conclude that it didn't actually happen.

[Paralytic]

And HMRC will come after them personally. The tax man isn't deterred by a company closing down.

Any examples of this *ever* happening, except in obviously fraudulent cases?

[Paralytic]

And HMRC will come after them personally. The tax man isn't deterred by a company closing down.

AFAIK (correct me if I am wrong) if a company employed you but didn't pay your PAYE income tax and then closed down, HMRC could still come after you for the unpaid amount.

Any examples of this *ever* happening, except in obviously fraudulent cases?

[drmouse]

They won't have to. The ones I know are emptying/closing down their PSCs. Would need HMRC to come after them personally.

And HMRC will come after them personally. The tax man isn't deterred by a company closing down.

AFAIK (correct me if I am wrong) if a company employed you but didn't pay your PAYE income tax and then closed down, HMRC could still come after you for the unpaid amount.

[BolshieBastard]

They won't have to. The ones I know are emptying/closing down their PSCs. Would need HMRC to come after them personally.

Not a single one of them is closing their limited cos without HMRC's say so. Or, to be more accurate, HMRC not objecting to the closure of the ltd.

With lots of one man IT limited cos applying to be closed down, dont you think HMRC might take a passing interest in a representative sample at least?

[eek]

They won't have to. The ones I know are emptying/closing down their PSCs. Would need HMRC to come after them personally.

Which HMRC might in about 3 years time...

[Paralytic]

Can they afford the forthcoming historic tax bill?

They won't have to. The ones I know are emptying/closing down their PSCs. Would need HMRC to come after them personally.

[juckky]

Sadly I too have bills and a mortgage to pay, but the prospect of HMRC retrospectively going on a witch hunt for those who contracted outside and then went inside IR35 for the same client / role would keep me awake more than finding a way to pay said bills.

[northernladuk]

Depends what he's been doing in those 2 years and how he has conducted himself. It's easy to slip into part and parcel of the corporate structure if he hasn't been paying attention. But there is no such law that states length of contract as being a pointer to employment - many businesses have multi-year partnerships.

CEST would have been pointless : the client's answers would have had the OP inside anyway.

Bit tired of pointing this out but.. Yes you are technically correct there is no law but its been a factor in every single lost case and you would imagine it would be a factor in who HMRC pick next. So no law but a very important factor to be wary of.

[GhostofTarbera]

Can they afford the forthcoming historic tax bill?

Nope, that can is kicked further down the road


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[eek]

Most tried to jump ship but the market dead for past year - can’t pay bills on the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

Can they afford the forthcoming historic tax bill?

[GhostofTarbera]

Probably not the best plan after https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...all-along.html - we think you were inside and you've agreed that you are inside.

Care to argue or will you be sending us the cheque immediately.

Most tried to jump ship but the market dead for past year - can’t pay bills on the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[ChimpMaster]

Kudos to them for spotting the CEST tool is no good but it does make you wonder how much they know when they are making on the ground determinations.

Fair point about the 2 years as well. If you are PM you could look exactly like the bloke that's just lost his IR35 case.

If you are on a months notice you are a bit buggered though.

Time to leave... And fast.

Depends what he's been doing in those 2 years and how he has conducted himself. It's easy to slip into part and parcel of the corporate structure if he hasn't been paying attention. But there is no such law that states length of contract as being a pointer to employment - many businesses have multi-year partnerships.

CEST would have been pointless : the client's answers would have had the OP inside anyway.

[eek]

Thing is banking is fecked, there is no where to run to, all the people I know have went umbrella


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

Probably not the best plan after https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...all-along.html - we think you were inside and you've agreed that you are inside.

Care to argue or will you be sending us the cheque immediately.

[GhostofTarbera]

The irony is that a guy in the same area doing the same role, but 3 days per week who's been their 4 years contested and is now outside.

I'm walking in the next 2 week to join the ranks of the unemployed. No chance I am going from outside to inside for the same role.

Do the same 3 days a week outside will net same as 5 days inside


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum