Treasury response to "Don't extend IR35 reforms to Private sector" petition (no news)

[eek]

If the same legislation is applied to the private sector then that's not the case - it's the fee payer who has it over their head.

And if you are working through an agency who is not smart enough / geared up enough / prepared to take on the risk that their client might get it wrong and so they refuse to work with "difficult" contractors who will not operate via an umbrella if they believe the role to be outside IR35, then there is a problem for the "legitimate" contractor more than those who should always have been inside IR35.

Some big agencies will be able to take the risk easily, because they have the resources to take that on. Smaller agencies won't be able to do that - and some of the smaller agencies are better to work with than the bigger ones who are more intent on claiming market share via Brylcreem salespeople, which means that the contractor and the client end up with a sub-optimal experience. And where does that leave the contractor (and the client)?

The larger agencies will spend their time educating their clients to ensure contractors don't end up inside IR35. Smaller agencies won't have that option but no doubt third parties such as QDOS will provide similar schemes.

The one big issue you have missing from your comment above is the need to ensure that were a fee payer (agency) to go bankrupt due to a false interpretation the client becomes responsible for the payment and the innocent contractor isn't made liable....

[Maslins]

Maslins,

I think the key to all that is the communication to the end client that life is easier and contractors will generally be better if the role is outside IR35. Without that, you're simply suggesting the version that has been push out on to the public sector.

For the contractors in demand, then normal economics of supply and demand should deal with it. The contractor prefers outside. Any end clients who are insistent all contractors are inside will suffer, assuming other end clients aren't so restrictive. The public sector has seen this to an extent, but there's far more choice in the private sector.

[meanttobeworking]

Regarding insurance, is it possible that QDOS and co can offer insurance that the contractor takes out that lets them indemnify the end client? I’m not sure if you can take insurance to cover someone else’s loss/liability. Just trying to find a way for contractors to make it a no brainer for clients to evaluate things fairly rather than go for a cautious inside assessment.

[Acme Thunderer]

Regarding insurance, is it possible that QDOS and co can offer insurance that the contractor takes out that lets them indemnify the end client? I’m not sure if you can take insurance to cover someone else’s loss/liability. Just trying to find a way for contractors to make it a no brainer for clients to evaluate things fairly rather than go for a cautious inside assessment.

If an end client has lots of contractors in similar roles and HMRC gets one on being inside IR35 then HMRC could easily argue the rest are also caught, after all they are likely to have the same end client to agency contract terms/working practices.

Don't see QDOS covering that liability.

[BrilloPad]

If an end client has lots of contractors in similar roles and HMRC gets one on being inside IR35 then HMRC could easily argue the rest are also caught, after all they are likely to have the same end client to agency contract terms/working practices.

Don't see QDOS covering that liability.

Neither can I.

The HMRC idea is to bully employers into not offering contract roles.

[meanttobeworking]

Maybe HMRC should offer their own insurance policy, taking £300 a year from each contractor should increase their coffers nicely, and no need to do any enquiries as they’d only have to pay the bill themselves. Any any similarity to paying mafia protection money would be entirely coincidental :/

[WordIsBond]

If the same legislation is applied to the private sector then that's not the case - it's the fee payer who has it over their head.

This is one of the glorious stupidities that only government could devise -- the end client makes the determination but the liability falls on someone else.

[BrilloPad]

This is one of the glorious stupidities that only government could devise -- the end client makes the determination but the liability falls on someone else.

HMRC devised it. They "won" Rangers but actually lost as liabilty falls on employer. So now they are trying to retrospectively change the rules so anyone HMRC choose is responsible.

Government issue is listening to everything HMRC say.

And today Government claimed they are ready for a Russia cyber attack. IT contractors are ready to fight the enemy. But its not Russia. Its HMRC....

[washed up contractor]

The larger agencies will spend their time educating their clients to ensure contractors don't end up inside IR35. Smaller agencies won't have that option but no doubt third parties such as QDOS will provide similar schemes.

Hahaha, yeah, sure the' big agencies' will educate their clients! Where have you been hiding since 2001!?

I dont know of a single agency, big or otherwise, who have educated their clients towards contractors in any respect never mind IR35. Good luck with that particular piece of blindness.

[BrilloPad]

Hahaha, yeah, sure the' big agencies' will educate their clients! Where have you been hiding since 2001!?

I dont know of a single agency, big or otherwise, who have educated their clients towards contractors in any respect never mind IR35. Good luck with that particular piece of blindness.

Where it earns the agents money, they will do whatever is necessary.

These HMRC reforms could kill off contract agencies entirely. I don't think they earn as mupart from where they earn money, I do agree with you.