So basically the US are saying they want permanent staff rather than contractors.
And the fact HR are saying this reinforces the point - this isn't a battle you are going to win (mainly because HR are involved) and US HR are paranoid about this type of thing due to historic nightmares in the USA,
- 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 "What (therotical) actions can contractors take where SDS is wrong"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by cojak View PostDoes the client have a UK presence?
Its a multinational with HQ in the US. However all matters related to HR compliance are handled by the US HR team. They don't really use contractors in the UK so this is all new to them. They are unwilling to discuss any of the detail and say the matter is now closed.Last edited by dingdong; 12 May 2021, 09:55.
Leave a comment:
-
Here's an amusing exchange that pretty much sums it up from HMRC's perspective. "Um, er, speak to someone else".
https://community.hmrc.gov.uk/forums...8-00155d973b50
Leave a comment:
-
You say "HR in the USA", but presumably this is not a fully overseas supply chain, otherwise you wouldn't have an SDS in the first place and the Chapter 8 rules of the ITEPA would apply (pre-April 6 2021 or "normal IR35"). Assuming there is a UK company somewhere in the supply chain (who is liable) then, yes, the overseas company is responsible for adhering to the OPWR (Chapter 10), which includes issuing a timely and valid SDS and running a client-led status disagreement process.
However, as you suggest, you're in a tough spot and you have my sympathies for that (because this work is almost certainly outside IR35, in reality). HMRC won't care about this (there is no tax at risk) and it's unclear what you could do, legally, to overturn the SDS and claim unlawful deductions. In theory, UK court action or an ET may be possible (for missing employment rights or unlawful deductions from wages, I suppose), but you'd have the additional complexity of the client being in a different jurisdiction. The legislated liability w/r to the UK connection in the supply chain is to HMRC (if payroll taxes were not deducted when they should've been) and not to you, so that would be interesting. What does your contract say about jurisdiction and governing law and with whom is your contract?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dingdong View PostSo in my fun case I’ve had HR in the USA who don’t know the first thing about IR35 decide I’m inside.
This is despite….- Supplying four different people under my contract (including a substitute for 2 months)
- Working practices confirmed by programme sponsor stating no control or MOO
- CEST and IR35 shield assessment both confirming outside.
I’m going to complete the gig as inside as there is not long left and I like the programme I am delivering (i'm confident my prior status can be defended if necessary).
However it did set me off thinking what possible recourse would contractors have where their SDS is plain wrong.
I came up with these two (not that I will pursue any of them but it is an interesting academic exercise)….
1. HRMC inquiry
Given HRMC are always very keen to open inquries where people are outside to reclassify them as inside…. Is there any reason you couldn’t ask HRMC to open an inquiry to do the reverse where you are confident the determination is clearly incorrect?
2. Employment Tribunal / Court action
Complete the gig and then take court action later against an incorrect determination
There are no other legal options that I'm aware of nor anyone else as you will see all the effort is being spent in making sure the determination is correct and that there is some backup for outside determinations should a company wish to offer them.
And there was zero chance a US company would offer an outside determination - there be dragons there.
Leave a comment:
-
What (therotical) actions can contractors take where SDS is wrong
So in my fun case I’ve had HR in the USA who don’t know the first thing about IR35 decide I’m inside.
This is despite….- Supplying four different people under my contract (including a substitute for 2 months)
- Working practices confirmed by programme sponsor stating no control or MOO
- CEST and IR35 shield assessment both confirming outside.
I’m going to complete the gig as inside as there is not long left and I like the programme I am delivering (i'm confident my prior status can be defended if necessary).
However it did set me off thinking what possible recourse would contractors have where their SDS is plain wrong.
I came up with these two (not that I will pursue any of them but it is an interesting academic exercise)….
1. HRMC inquiry
Given HRMC are always very keen to open inquries where people are outside to reclassify them as inside…. Is there any reason you couldn’t ask HRMC to open an inquiry to do the reverse where you are confident the determination is clearly incorrect?
2. Employment Tribunal / Court action
Complete the gig and then take court action later against an incorrect determination
Tags: None
- 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
- The JSL nub for umbrellas/agencies: who runs PAYE and who will HMRC bill? Today 18:16
- How HMRC’s umbrella company JSL rules will play out Aug 13 23:33
- As Small Business Commissioner, I invite unpaid limited company contractors to come forward Aug 13 17:50
- Is Labour just going to leave limited company contracting zombie-like, neither dead nor alive? Aug 12 22:56
- Contracting Awards 2025 unveils ‘stellar’ shortlist Aug 11 21:31
- If it’s JSL liability, it’s Managed Service Providers (MSPs) too, potentially Aug 8 02:54
- Labour's new anti-late payment package ‘a contractor confidence boost’ Aug 7 00:33
- MSC test cases: Feb 2026 spells certainty for Boox/CK contractors Aug 6 05:36
- Under JSL, agencies are ‘umbrella companies’ if no brollies are present Aug 4 23:06
- How to get paid by a closed (or closing) recruitment agency Aug 4 17:37
Leave a comment: