Reply to: Finance bill 2016

[jamesbrown]

Change management is an essential and well used IT Practice Contractors would be expected to adhere to the process, question is would it be deemed as controlling how the work is provided i.e. "Do it like this" ?

To whom and for what purpose? If you read the HMRC guidance and believed it, almost certainly, yes, but the only case law on SDC relates to control (and, specifically, the sufficient degree of control); future case law is obviously unknown. If you're an employee of a brolly, it's a probably a moot point, because you're unlikely to get agreement on lack of SDC from all relevant parties. Beyond that, it's also moot, because SDC is not a test that applies beyond the Agency legislation (which itself doesn't apply to PAYE salary or dividends) or beyond T&S for H2W travel for umbrella employees.

[colinrobinson]

would you consider following clients Change process SDC ?

Change management is an essential and well used IT Practice Contractors would be expected to adhere to the process, question is would it be deemed as controlling how the work is provided i.e. "Do it like this" ?

[jamesbrown]

It's a shame that today CUK publishes even more incorrect "advice" about this:

"Consequently, HM Revenue & Customs decided that workers who operate through an intermediary (recruitment agency, umbrella company or PSC) would no longer be able to claim tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses if they are under the Supervision, Direction or Control (SDC) of anyone within the contractual chain."

THAT IS NOT CORRECT AND WAS CONFIRMED YESTERDAY AS SUCH - although the story does contradict itself nicely by later saying that "workers who operate through a PSC will only fall under this legislation if they also fall inside IR35.", it's frustrating to see the umbrella industry peddle what they know (or should know) is a lie.

Agreed, this really needs to be called out wherever it is seen. Such companies should be aware that they receive business on the basis of personal recommendations from other contractors (us) who are not engaged through an umbrella. Those recommendations are likely to disappear pretty quickly if myths are being peddled.

[jamesbrown]

seems pretty clear to me from reading that doc that HMRC would consider a code review as evidence of SDC... it also seems obvious to me that their long term plan for 'Son of IR35' is to replace all existing case law with 'simple' SDC tests :-(

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-to-the-manner

It really doesn't matter what HMRC consider to represent a sufficient degree of control (which will form the basis for judging SDC in future case law). What matters is the future case law. This (SDC) will play out in a similar way to IR35, although SDC certainly represents a narrowing of the focus to one element of control (to the detriment of MoO and RoS).

[matzie]

seems pretty clear to me from reading that doc that HMRC would consider a code review as evidence of SDC... it also seems obvious to me that their long term plan for 'Son of IR35' is to replace all existing case law with 'simple' SDC tests :-(

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-to-the-manner

Supervision over the manner in which the worker provides the services is the action or process of watching or overseeing what a person does or how something is to be done. If a person checks or has the right to check the work that the worker is doing to make sure it meets a required standard, the manner in which the worker provides the services is subject to supervision.

Supervision can involve helping the worker develop their skills and knowledge.

Direction over the manner in which the worker provides the services is making a worker do their work in a certain way by providing them with instructions, guidance, or advice as to how the work must be done. Someone providing direction will often co-ordinate how the work is done as it’s being undertaken.

Control over the manner in which the worker provides the services is telling or instructing a worker about how they do the work. Control over how the person does work also includes someone having the power to move the person from one job to another. If someone can say “don’t do it like that” or “do it like this” then they have a right of control as to the manner in which a person works.

[moggy]

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ion-or-control

why can we not get concise and consistent information.. my guess is this is where the original misinterpretation came from?

[TheFaQQer]

It's a shame that today CUK publishes even more incorrect "advice" about this:

"Consequently, HM Revenue & Customs decided that workers who operate through an intermediary (recruitment agency, umbrella company or PSC) would no longer be able to claim tax relief on travel and subsistence expenses if they are under the Supervision, Direction or Control (SDC) of anyone within the contractual chain."

THAT IS NOT CORRECT AND WAS CONFIRMED YESTERDAY AS SUCH - although the story does contradict itself nicely by later saying that "workers who operate through a PSC will only fall under this legislation if they also fall inside IR35.", it's frustrating to see the umbrella industry peddle what they know (or should know) is a lie.

[TheFaQQer]

Wow, that was quick Thanks.

Edit: I see their clarification now refers to managed PSCs (i.e. MSCs), which I concur is the correct interpretation, in my non-expert opinion.

The article was corrected earlier today to add the "managed" clarification.

[mudskipper]

Wow, that was quick Thanks.

Edit: I see their clarification now refers to managed PSCs (i.e. MSCs), which I concur is the correct interpretation, in my non-expert opinion.

Indeedy.

[jamesbrown]

and the original article has been corrected too.

Contractor body backs T&S loophole closure :: Contractor UK

Wow, that was quick Thanks.

Edit: I see their clarification now refers to managed PSCs (i.e. MSCs), which I concur is the correct interpretation, in my non-expert opinion.

[jamesbrown]

It would be good if we could get the CUK article pulled or corrected. I'll PM admin, unless someone has done that already?

I wouldn't be too surprised if this was a case of FSCA reading what they wanted to see, without thinking about it too carefully. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. Either way, it does nothing for their reputation. I've seen other umbrella companies trying to spread FUD in the hope that their clients won't switch to a Ltd company. TBH, I doubt many will, because there are other factors, but it won't help their cause to lie about the situation.

[jamesbrown]

Here you go

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/contract...n-direction-or

Excellent, job well done.

[mudskipper]

Either way - but especially if they've done it deliberately - they need to be called out on this if they're wrong (e.g. by IPSE), because it will otherwise have the desired effect of propagating misinformation.

Confirmation from IPSE

https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/contract...n-direction-or

and the original article has been corrected too.

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/001...e_closure.html

[jamesbrown]

I wouldn't describe them as a "contractor body". They're a body of accountants and umbrellas.

Unfortunately it's in the interests of brollies to push the "we're all in it together" message, and spread a bit of uncertainty.

Either way - but especially if they've done it deliberately - they need to be called out on this if they're wrong (e.g. by IPSE), because it will otherwise have the desired effect of propagating misinformation.

[mudskipper]

I wouldn't describe them as a "contractor body". They're a body of accountants and umbrellas.

Unfortunately it's in the interests of brollies to push the "we're all in it together" message, and spread a bit of uncertainty.