Reply to: Just received this from our contact at HMRC

[Zero Liability]

Sounds like a star sign.

Or a herding pen. Anything to get dear Gideon's mojo in gear.

[mudskipper]

Yes, "PSCs".

Sounds like a star sign.

[Zero Liability]

Thanks for the clarification. So in this case we are PSCs

But as I said, it sounds like they clearly think S, D or C check is easier than it actually is which is worrying. It means they could turn on the in or out IR35 on that basis at some point...

Yes, "PSCs".

[cityben]

It is for T&S, but "PSCs" are excluded - for us, IR35 is the decider - inside = no T&S, outside = T&S. So for most of us, it's carry on as before, for now.

Thanks for the clarification. So in this case we are PSCs

But as I said, it sounds like they clearly think S, D or C check is easier than it actually is which is worrying. It means they could turn on the in or out IR35 on that basis at some point...

[mudskipper]

Yes but, correct me if I'm wrong this is for T & S isn't it? Therefore after April 2016 by default T & S tax relief won't be able to be claimed unless "it is shown otherwise" i.e. you need to contact them to prove no S, D or C.

"Most end engagers will only need to take action where a worker is not under supervision, direction or control in the manner they undertake their work. Workers are assumed to be under supervision, direction or control, unless it is shown otherwise."

Or am I misunderstanding things?

I suppose what we're all saying is we're worried that if they're doing this for T & S they'll just as easily flip this to employment status?

It is for T&S, but "PSCs" are excluded - for us, IR35 is the decider - inside = no T&S, outside = T&S. So for most of us, it's carry on as before, for now.

[cityben]

To be clear - this isn't IR35 yet - just a portent of doom...

Yes but, correct me if I'm wrong this is for T & S isn't it? Therefore after April 2016 by default T & S tax relief won't be able to be claimed unless "it is shown otherwise" i.e. you need to contact them to prove no S, D or C.

"Most end engagers will only need to take action where a worker is not under supervision, direction or control in the manner they undertake their work. Workers are assumed to be under supervision, direction or control, unless it is shown otherwise."

Or am I misunderstanding things?

I suppose what we're all saying is we're worried that if they're doing this for T & S they'll just as easily flip this to employment status?

[lucyclarityumbrella]

I don't believe we know. Best guess is "soon".

Our contact from HMRC said this "HMRC promise clear and concise guidance before 6 April 2016" - guessing this is as precise in terms of date as they want to be

[GB9]

FTFY - That is what the contract needs to state, no contract can say there is no S,D OR C, cos that basically means they can't ask you to start on X date, or follow their H&S policy or any minutia you care to pick.

Things such as H&S fall outside sdc.

How is start date sdc? Fixed working hours, maybe.

Unless the definition of sdc changes, and they have indicated that it won't, then I think it will be very possible to get a non sdc situation.

What will be clear though is the client's expectation of whether they want a disguised employee or not.

[Danglekt]

Either way, S, D and C are all fairly well defined by case law. To be outside it all that would be needed would be for the contract to state that there is no S, D AND C, and for working practises to mirror this. This doesn't feel too bad.

.

FTFY - That is what the contract needs to state, no contract can say there is no S,D OR C, cos that basically means they can't ask you to start on X date, or follow their H&S policy or any minutia you care to pick.

[GB9]

Currently, to be within ir35, all three of S, D and C need to apply.

In the HMRC guidance it appears to indicate that a right to any one of the three would find a psc within ir35. However, the quoted paragraph of the proposal seems to contradict this.

Either way, S, D and C are all fairly well defined by case law. To be outside it all that would be needed would be for the contract to state that there is no S, D or C, and for working practises to mirror this. This doesn't feel too bad.

BTW, anyone who thinks that there being no legal definition of a psc will save them needs to sober up. All it needs is a judge in one case to say 'yes' to HMRC'S definition and that's it.

[mudskipper]

This is a big worry. How are they going to inform every single engager in the country? Or is that what they want, that everyone by default is inside IR35....?

To be clear - this isn't IR35 yet - just a portent of doom...

[cityben]

Just received this from our contact at HMRC

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nd-subsistence

"Most end engagers will only need to take action where a worker is not under supervision, direction or control in the manner they undertake their work. Workers are assumed to be under supervision, direction or control, unless it is shown otherwise."

So end client doesn't even have to make a decision.

This is a big worry. How are they going to inform every single engager in the country? Or is that what they want, that everyone by default is inside IR35....?

[LondonManc]

So everyone is inside IR35, an no one can pay T&S then?

(MPs excluded obviously)

MPs are probably on permie contracts so will be allowed to claim expenses.



Thought; do we insist in a contract that our registered office is our regular place of work and then we can claim T&S because we're travelling to an alternative location, i.e. client site?

[MrMarkyMark]

I ask him to 'de slurge the bogit' as it is making a whistle noise?

Works done, that will be £750 +VAT, please.

[PurpleGorilla]

If you are telling him when he should turn up then yes.

So everyone is inside IR35, an no one can pay T&S then?

(MPs excluded obviously)