Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[MrMarkyMark]

Don't be so sure. I've contracted out my water, electricity, gas and waste disposal for many years, I don't think I employ that many people...

As has been said already, it's about which framework they are covered by. CLOne will be caught but others may well not be.

They will try argue it, for sure, whether it is right or not is another question.

Hopefully, there will be room for flex, but knowing HMRC I wouldn't bank on it.

[eek]

They will try argue it, for sure, whether it is right or not is another question.

Hopefully, there will be room for flex, but knowing HMRC I wouldn't bank on it.

We've already seen the CLone documentation changed on the quiet to reflect the new reality - CLOne contracts by default are under SDC

[Danglekt]

sorry to be dim, what is CLOne?

[northernladuk]

sorry to be dim, what is CLOne?

Contingent Labour 1. It's their framework for taking contractors on.

[mudskipper]

I know they might argue a lot of things.
Would a tribunal care about the practicalities or indeed about the reality of it?

If you are deemed to be IR35 caught, you can challenge that decision, which could, potentially, go to tribunal who would look at the reality of the engagement in a similar way to IR35 cases today.

[malvolio]

We've already seen the CLone documentation changed on the quiet to reflect the new reality - CLOne contracts by default are under SDC

Yes, for roles that are clearly manpower replacement or bulk skills on a given project (which to be fair is most of them). There are other routes for true specialists such as strategic consultants and suppliers of highly specific knowledge, and routes for suppliers of software and hardware (in our terms) such as someone building a site-wide LAN and providing all the tin and wires and monitoring as well as people.

The hard part will be finding a role that hasn't been defaulted to CLOne, but it is possible and I've seen it done.

[eek]

If you are deemed to be IR35 caught, you can challenge that decision, which could, potentially, go to tribunal who would look at the reality of the engagement in a similar way to IR35 cases today.

Well you could but it would take a year at least to get the tribunal during which time you would be target number 1 to be removed from the client....

Also exactly what will you gain by going to a tribunal. The tax was already paid by the 3rd party and won't be reclaimable - the best you can hope for would be an agreement that you weren't covered by IR35 but oops we can't solve that now....

The killer in these changes is not just who determines the IR35 status and who has to pay up if its wrong but the switch in the tribunal rules away from HMRC trying to get money from a limited company, to a limited company trying to get it's client to pay money that said client has already paid HMRC and really, really, really doesn't want to pay twice especially when parts of it are not reclaimable from HMRC...

So yes you could argue the decision in a tribunal I just doubt you would be arguing over that much money as your contract will have been given to someone else.

[eek]

Yes, for roles that are clearly manpower replacement or bulk skills on a given project (which to be fair is most of them). There are other routes for true specialists such as strategic consultants and suppliers of highly specific knowledge, and routes for suppliers of software and hardware (in our terms) such as someone building a site-wide LAN and providing all the tin and wires and monitoring as well as people.

The hard part will be finding a role that hasn't been defaulted to CLOne, but it is possible and I've seen it done.

Have you seen it done since the new guidance with simple flowcharts appeared in August?

[jamesbrown]

The hard part will be finding a role that hasn't been defaulted to CLOne, but it is possible and I've seen it done.

I don't work in the PS, so I'm speculating, but I would imagine that the compliance framework for determining the choice of contracting vehicle will be heavily policed following these changes, otherwise it would be an obvious workaround...

[SueEllen]

I don't work in the PS, so I'm speculating, but I would imagine that the compliance framework for determining the choice of contracting vehicle will be heavily policed following these changes, otherwise it would be an obvious workaround...

Departments and agencies will have to use workarounds as they won't be able to get the contractors....