Telegraph article on IR35 impact

[Lance]

Nigel is probably right. Forget what the law actually says, in reality HMRC is not likely to go after someone with multiple simultaneous engagements. And even if they do, if you are paying yourself a salary and making pension contributions, you can always attribute them to the contract they challenge which means they'll gain very little by going after you. Which means they probably won't do it. So yes, having 3-4 concurrent clients probably makes you effectively IR35 proof, even though the law says differently.

In fact with multiple simultaneous engagements there is a legal IR35 defence albeit circumstantially evidence.
How can multiple companies be demonstrated to have S, D and C over you?
HMRC know this and leave those well alone.

[malvolio]

In fact with multiple simultaneous engagements there is a legal IR35 defence albeit circumstantially evidence.
How can multiple companies be demonstrated to have S, D and C over you?
HMRC know this and leave those well alone.

Ermm, no...

IR35 is judged on a contract by contract basis, one at a time. You can be done for one of your multiple gigs just as easily as someone with a single client. Multiple clients is not a defence.

HTH...

[Lance]

Ermm, no...

IR35 is judged on a contract by contract basis, one at a time. You can be done for one of your multiple gigs just as easily as someone with a single client. Multiple clients is not a defence.

HTH...

you miss my point. You are right but still miss the point that WIB and I are making.

With multiple clients it's difficult to demonstrate that you are under SDC for any of them.
And yes if there was one you did most work for they'd pick on that one first, but IMO if your revenue is split equally between more than 3 clients they'll move swiftly on to an easier target.

I am not suggesting this is the correct legal definition just how it works in practise.

[eek]

you miss my point. You are right but still miss the point that WIB and I are making.

With multiple clients it's difficult to demonstrate that you are under SDC for any of them.
And yes if there was one you did most work for they'd pick on that one first, but IMO if your revenue is split equally between more than 3 clients they'll move swiftly on to an easier target.

I am not suggesting this is the correct legal definition just how it works in practise.

That argument only works while the contractor determines whether the contract is inside or outside IR35. Once determination is made by the customer - it's likely that we will have more situations like one I've heard of in the NHS where a consultant is deemed inside on one contract and outside on the other 3 (he worked across 4 trusts - I have to check as I suspect he now only works for 3)....

[Lance]

That argument only works while the contractor determines whether the contract is inside or outside IR35. Once determination is made by the customer - it's likely that we will have more situations like one I've heard of in the NHS where a consultant is deemed inside on one contract and outside on the other 3 (he worked across 4 trusts - I have to check as I suspect he now only works for 3)....

Indeed.

[mattfx]

Ermm, no...

IR35 is judged on a contract by contract basis, one at a time. You can be done for one of your multiple gigs just as easily as someone with a single client. Multiple clients is not a defence.

HTH...

How can it not be? If you worked at Client A for 3 days then at Client B for 2 days in a week, you are clearly demonstrating that you're a consultant who is free from any kind of "disguised employment" at either client, no? I have two clients in addition to my current "main" contract who I've been doing bits and pieces of work for here and there, some of which I've done in evenings and weekends and others I have taken days out of being on site at my main client to do. Surely that demonstrates quite clearly I cannot be a disguised employee at any of them!?

[MrMarkyMark]

How can it not be? If you worked at Client A for 3 days then at Client B for 2 days in a week, you are clearly demonstrating that you're a consultant who is free from any kind of "disguised employment" at either client, no? I have two clients in addition to my current "main" contract who I've been doing bits and pieces of work for here and there, some of which I've done in evenings and weekends and others I have taken days out of being on site at my main client to do. Surely that demonstrates quite clearly I cannot be a disguised employee at any of them!?

What you think does not count in HMRCs eyes as far as contracts go.
They could say a person was contracted to do a couple of part time jobs.

However, I would wager your working practices would cover you in this particular instance.

[malvolio]

How can it not be? If you worked at Client A for 3 days then at Client B for 2 days in a week, you are clearly demonstrating that you're a consultant who is free from any kind of "disguised employment" at either client, no? I have two clients in addition to my current "main" contract who I've been doing bits and pieces of work for here and there, some of which I've done in evenings and weekends and others I have taken days out of being on site at my main client to do. Surely that demonstrates quite clearly I cannot be a disguised employee at any of them!?

No idea. Sadly you have to defeat the original legislation and case law to win that argument.

As people have said, it is a risk mitigation, but it is not a defence if challenged. The prosecution and the bench will simply ignore the other contracts

[jamesbrown]

No idea. Sadly you have to defeat the original legislation and case law to win that argument.

As people have said, it is a risk mitigation, but it is not a defence if challenged. The prosecution and the bench will simply ignore the other contracts

Ignore is too strong, but they’ll only use it in assessing whether the contractor is in business on their own account, and not to establish whether the contract in question is caught (this is a truism). Either way, the case law supports what you’re saying. It’s contract-by-contract, both in theory and in practice. It’s perfectly possible to have multiple caught contracts, some caught and some not, a change in the status of a contract over time etc. Case law supports this.

[mattfx]

I appreciate what you're saying, but the other pieces of work aren't even contracts - they are professional services engagements. Work I have tendered for, produced a proposal for, won the business for and then executed on. No agents, direct, competing against other competitive consultants who also want the work.

Surely this sets me apart as a "true" consultant? And that surely would have to be strongly factored in to any argument relating to disguised employment elsewhere? I.E. the chances are if that's how I conduct myself at multiple other clients, that pattern of behavior will be consistent across other engagements as well, no?

If HMRC would even dare attempt to start accusing other contractors who had undertaken work in a similar manner of being disguised employees it'd be enough to make me want to quit contracting, and i've only just started! There seems to be a massive air of them just wanting everyone inside IR35 and not stopping until the market gets to that point.