Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[jonnyboy]

Hi all, new poster (long time lurker) here. Can somebody clarify something for me on this proposal?

I have skimmed through the initial document, looked at the examples, and all as far as I can see are based around a supply of a service for x days at x pounds?
What about the supply of a fix price no-days-specified-for-duration project.. such as "We will develop and supply a widget software app for you, it will be written in SQL and C#, and will cost a total of £25,000" - no day rate, no agency, no number of days.. does this fall into the catchment?

Looking at the flow in diagram 2 (page 23) it suggest that it goes into the "consideration" part, but then on the next flow, (diagram 4) the questions would be...
IS the worker required to do the work themselves - yes.. possibly I could outside some development to an overseas coding factory. How much do I need to farm out to NOT be doing it myself, 1%, 100%?
Does the engager decide OR HAVE THE RIGHT to decide how the work should be done.... this is where I have a problem

This last question is very very fuzzy - I cant imagine ANYBODY giving up this for anything - otherwise I might deliver something thats in Russian with yellow fonts and blue backgrounds. How far does the right for somebody to say "It must be in English and look nice" fall into this question. Or what about "And it must interface to our xxxxxx system using this interface"?

Thanks to anybody who can shed some light on this.

[mudskipper]

Hi all, new poster (long time lurker) here. Can somebody clarify something for me on this proposal?

I have skimmed through the initial document, looked at the examples, and all as far as I can see are based around a supply of a service for x days at x pounds?
What about the supply of a fix price no-days-specified-for-duration project.. such as "We will develop and supply a widget software app for you, it will be written in SQL and C#, and will cost a total of £25,000" - no day rate, no agency, no number of days.. does this fall into the catchment?

Looking at the flow in diagram 2 (page 23) it suggest that it goes into the "consideration" part, but then on the next flow, (diagram 4) the questions would be...
IS the worker required to do the work themselves - yes.. possibly I could outside some development to an overseas coding factory. How much do I need to farm out to NOT be doing it myself, 1%, 100%?
Does the engager decide OR HAVE THE RIGHT to decide how the work should be done.... this is where I have a problem

This last question is very very fuzzy - I cant imagine ANYBODY giving up this for anything - otherwise I might deliver something thats in Russian with yellow fonts and blue backgrounds. How far does the right for somebody to say "It must be in English and look nice" fall into this question. Or what about "And it must interface to our xxxxxx system using this interface"?

Thanks to anybody who can shed some light on this.

At the moment it's not clear which procurement frameworks will be covered by the legislation. Remember, you won't be answering the questions, it will be the engager. The risk is that most will just go with "everybody caught" rather than assessing each engagement individually.

[northernladuk]

You are mixing two problems. One is the consultation. The second is trying to work with the PS in the way you want. Now I'm in no way an expert but from my limited experience you won't be able to send work offshore. There is the engagement method as well. They just removed a load of recruiters off glcoud and out them through the correct bum on seat channels. Again I'm not 100% sure but you are going to struggle to get costed work through a bum on seat channel.

Dunno the details but something you need consider rather than just make up possible ways out.

[eek]

The way I've read it is that you need to supply things with a tangible value alongside the bum on a seat.

It's why I'm spending so long at the moment creating "building block" tools for the software I work on. That gives me a combination of fixed prices I can automatically add to the bill followed by an argument that only my company is authorised to do further customize it...

Granted its probably not the greatest argument in the world and the above is not the best explanation but its far more organised than other people are..

[jamesbrown]

Hi all, new poster (long time lurker) here. Can somebody clarify something for me on this proposal?

I have skimmed through the initial document, looked at the examples, and all as far as I can see are based around a supply of a service for x days at x pounds?
What about the supply of a fix price no-days-specified-for-duration project.. such as "We will develop and supply a widget software app for you, it will be written in SQL and C#, and will cost a total of £25,000" - no day rate, no agency, no number of days.. does this fall into the catchment?

Looking at the flow in diagram 2 (page 23) it suggest that it goes into the "consideration" part, but then on the next flow, (diagram 4) the questions would be...
IS the worker required to do the work themselves - yes.. possibly I could outside some development to an overseas coding factory. How much do I need to farm out to NOT be doing it myself, 1%, 100%?
Does the engager decide OR HAVE THE RIGHT to decide how the work should be done.... this is where I have a problem

This last question is very very fuzzy - I cant imagine ANYBODY giving up this for anything - otherwise I might deliver something thats in Russian with yellow fonts and blue backgrounds. How far does the right for somebody to say "It must be in English and look nice" fall into this question. Or what about "And it must interface to our xxxxxx system using this interface"?

Thanks to anybody who can shed some light on this.

To be brutally honest, all of this is moot, as mudskipper suggests. In the absence of due process (and that's what HMRC/HMG are trying to circumvent), it doesn't matter whether your contract is inside IR35 or not. What matters is the process that leads to a view about whether it's inside or not, and that process will be rigged against you by virtue of the liabilities in defending an outside position as an engager.

That being said, were the facts to matter, a superficial assessment of your scenario would be favourable. While payment terms are irrelevant in themselves, a fixed price contract typically entails a degree of risk and autonomy that would be difficult to prosecute as being inside. Obviously, it would depend on the facts. However, your last statement is confusing requirements ("what") and methodology ("how"). The purpose of SDC (HMRC's particular view of D&C) is to distinguish between requirements and methodology; that is, between what must be delivered and how it is delivered. In their view (and I have some sympathy with this, based on case law) what matters about D&C is the autonomy provided in delivering requirements, and not the requirements themselves, which may be prescribed upfront. If you engage a heating engineer to fit a new boiler, they don't have the autonomy to interpret that as a new shower, but they do have the autonomy to decide how best to fit it, as an independent expert. Now, arguably, there are situations where the "what" and "how" overlap, but generally speaking, you shouldn't be told how to deliver. Difficulties arise when a particular methodology is imposed (I don't work in IT, so this may be a cack-handed analogy, but my impression is that Agile could stray too far into the "how").

[youngguy]

Article in 'mainstream' media about the impending changes. The comments confirm the public is not on our side!

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/s...rticle-3761454

[northernladuk]

Article in 'mainstream' media about the impending changes. The comments confirm the public is not on our side!

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/s...rticle-3761454

And in other breaking news it has been found out that bears really do tulip in the woods.

[youngguy]

And in other breaking news it has been found out that bears really do tulip in the woods.

Yes,yes I know! It's more reaffirmation than new news....but plays to the points I previously made about hearts and minds and education of the differences we have.

I'd like to see the lobbying tackle this element as well as the Gov tax collection propaganda

[MrMarkyMark]

Yes,yes I know! It's more reaffirmation than new news....but plays to the points I previously made about hearts and minds and education of the differences we have.

I'd like to see the lobbying tackle this element as well as the Gov tax collection propaganda

The thing is most won't care in the least, they will just see that their tax money is being spent on tax avoiding expensive resource.

[mudskipper]

Yes,yes I know! It's more reaffirmation than new news....but plays to the points I previously made about hearts and minds and education of the differences we have.

I'd like to see the lobbying tackle this element as well as the Gov tax collection propaganda

TBH, given some of the comments on the article, I think these perceptions are down to contractors themselves, who flash the cash, say "I'll expense it" and generally boast about how little tax they pay. It's a small minority, but while people do behave like that, those who work with them (and possibly know the day rates) are going to think everyone is taking the mickey.