Outside contract (With CEST), to Umbrella - how exposed?

[cojak]

I have always posted this as awareness not advice.

If you don't think there's a risk, just keep your evidence as everyone says and take the contract.

[vwdan]

Cheers guys - think we're all on the same page. It's a potentially really interesting role, and the IR35 side is gonna be the same with any outside role right now so "Keep invoicing" I think!

[eek]

There is a presumption from SOME on this forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, even if that is ONLY due to the client banning PSCs. I do not share that belief and I've seen no convincing argument why that will be the case.

If this is a contract you want to take, I'd do so, and not let any potential client decision next April to disengage with PSCs change that.

No there is a presumption that it is a very easy database query to run within HMRC's big dataset were HMRC to need extra money and decide to operate a shake the tree approach as they did with Glaxo...

I would just keep evidence it was outside and keep the documentation that referenced a blanket ban were one to be implemented.

[Paralytic]

I've got a potential client with an outside role. It's both outside in real terms, and on the basis of CEST - organisationally, they have concluded it's outside and I'm quite happy that its the truth.

What I'm conscious of is the risk of hitting April and them blanket banning Ltd Co contractors. It (obviously) hasn't happened yet, but it's a possibility and I'm trying to work out my risk exposure. To be clear, I am not talking about a re-decision that the role falls inside, but an overall decision not to engage with Ltd Co contractors.

If that does happen, and I was to go brolly, how exposed would I be?

There seems to be a presumption on the forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, but ultimately Brolly != Inside, Brolly is simply out of scope. It doesn't seem to me that it could form any evidence in of itself.

I appreciate they could investigate the few months prior, but 1) It's only a few months 2) My CEST and working practices should show outside. But maybe I'm totally off basis and should just write the cheque now

There is a presumption from SOME on this forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, even if that is ONLY due to the client banning PSCs. I do not share that belief and I've seen no convincing argument why that will be the case.

If this is a contract you want to take, I'd do so, and not let any potential client decision next April to disengage with PSCs change that.

[ladymuck]

Keep all the evidence and the client's agreement that the role is outside. If they then change that in April, you'll want evidence as to how the role has changed such that it's become inside. I'd want a new contract at that point.

I think I saw that HMRC are going to be more focussed on ensuring the clients are being compliant rather than picking on the contractor but we know how trustworthy they can be.

Ah - you've edited!
If the client states they no longer want to engage with Ltd Co contractors, then get that in writing and keep it as evidence of your decision to use a different vehicle in order to be able to deliver the services they want.

[vwdan]

I've got a potential client with an outside role. It's both outside in real terms, and on the basis of CEST - organisationally, they have concluded it's outside and I'm quite happy that its the truth.

What I'm conscious of is the risk of hitting April and them blanket banning Ltd Co contractors. It (obviously) hasn't happened yet, but it's a possibility and I'm trying to work out my risk exposure. To be clear, I am not talking about a re-decision that the role falls inside, but an overall decision not to engage with Ltd Co contractors.

If that does happen, and I was to go brolly, how exposed would I be?

There seems to be a presumption on the forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, but ultimately Brolly != Inside, Brolly is simply out of scope. It doesn't seem to me that it could form any evidence in of itself.

I appreciate they could investigate the few months prior, but 1) It's only a few months 2) My CEST and working practices should show outside. But maybe I'm totally off basis and should just write the cheque now