Ir35 2020

[jamesbrown]

Hmm - I wonder who pointed that out before all this began but was chased off this site.

Shame about all that as you put together some great advice.

[mudskipper]

Hmm - I wonder who pointed that out before all this began but flounced off this site taking his toys with him.

FTFY

But good to see you back. Hope the plan B is going well!

[ComplianceLady]

Cheers for the response.

The agent has told me all their contracts have been professionally reviewed externally and are deemed IR35 exempt. Who reviewed them I couldn't tell you, the end client is a large corporation and I have contracted for them before in a different part of the UK which is also a heavily contractor dense city so I trust that as I hear it.

However now with these changes I will be following it this up and find out who the professional reviewer is.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app

I write contracts for (part of) my living. I have the base document reviewed (alternate between different providers) in a bespoke review to check it doesn't raise an IR35 red flag. It's not a review to make the contract outside IR35 - that doesn't exist. It's a review to make sure that if the working arrangements are on an outside IR35 basis nothing in the contract would conflict with this. Contracts span multiple projects and ours are written for anyone working through an intermediary - PAYE or not so you can have one contract that could be deployed for both an inside and an outside engagement.

I review changes requested by reviewers daily, based on the working arrangements they may feel a particular clause needs to be clearer etc. The other posters are correct, the Agency review is of no value to you. A review backed by insurance is essential in my view and will become a requirement from Agencies post April 2020.

I don't concur with the majorities view that Agents cannot be trusted in any circumstances but - as someone who spends her life trying - it is incredibly difficult to have recruiters understand complex tax or contracts legislation (or any other kind) that doesn't touch their world on a regular basis. I ask recruiters to not attempt to answer questions they don't have the understanding of but it does happen.

[northernladuk]

I don't concur with the majorities view that Agents cannot be trusted in any circumstances but

It's a hell of a lot more accurate than the converse and stating agents can be trusted in all circumstances.

Might be a bit over the top yes but if you start off in this mode of thinking it will drive you to do your own diligence and check everything they say. In most cases you'll find nothing amiss which is great but it'll certainly help you spot the standard rubbish they roll out. Stuff that is very well documented on here.

I'd guess you have a different relationship with agents so may see a very different side. When it comes to creaming the top off some suckers rate they can be a very different beast.

- as someone who spends her life trying - it is incredibly difficult to have recruiters understand complex tax or contracts legislation (or any other kind) that doesn't touch their world on a regular basis. I ask recruiters to not attempt to answer questions they don't have the understanding of but it does happen.

Isn't that a very good the reason not to trust everything an agent says? That's not even touching on the devious crap they knowingly do, two references, another candidate will take the gig at 50 a day less yada yada yada.

Keep up the fight around answering questions they don't understand though. We've had some pretty incredible threads about what an agent said. Sometimes saying nothing and getting back to us would be much more productive and certainly help the trust issues. Thankless task that one.

[WordIsBond]

It's a hell of a lot more accurate than the converse and stating agents can be trusted in all circumstances.

Might be a bit over the top yes but if you start off in this mode of thinking it will drive you to do your own diligence and check everything they say. In most cases you'll find nothing amiss which is great but it'll certainly help you spot the standard rubbish they roll out. Stuff that is very well documented on here.

So change it to 'maybe some of them can be trusted but they shouldn't be, because you need to verify things, it's your business.'

Then everyone's happy.

[northernladuk]

So change it to 'maybe some of them can be trusted but they shouldn't be, because you need to verify things, it's your business.'

Then everyone's happy.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

[WordIsBond]

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Brexit is making your dollar worth more in pounds.

[northernladuk]

Brexit is making your dollar worth more in pounds.

I'm from Yorkshire. I was going to borrow it off someone else anyway.

[BR14]

I'm from Yorkshire. I was going to borrow it off someone else anyway.

no fae me ye won't, jimmy!

[Hobosapien]

I write contracts for (part of) my living. ...

It may be an overly simplistic view, coming from a contractor rather than client or agent or someone that supports them in a legal/compliance way as yourself, but it seems there is an opportunity to improve the standard of contracts being used by agents or direct clients by:

1. Providing a selection of clauses to add to a base template with each clause coming with supplemental notes detailing the benefits and impact of adding or excluding that clause.

2. Providing a selection of clauses that are required to ensure the contract when reviewed by a trusted independent service will fit the goal of it being inside or outside IR35.

3. Providing clear details of what working practices the client will need to adhere to to ensure a clause intended to take the contract outside IR35 stands up to scrutiny.

Someone with your skills could use the above to provide a service to agencies and clients to take away the burden of drafting appropriate contracts regarding IR35 or any other relevant compliance requirements, moving to an accredited service that is backed by the independent review services that offer the insurance, and recognised by HMRC as being fit for purpose so every instance of that contract in that state clause wise can be fast tracked through any review or investigation providing the client signs an acknowledgement that the working practices fit the requirements for the clauses used in the contract.

The overall benefit, other than efficiency in contract processing, would be everyone that is impacted by (client/agent/contractor) or has an interest in the contract terms can be assured the contract meets the requirements of its intended use.

The key would be getting the client to sign off that the contract and associated working practices match, as part of their role post April 2020 to be the one that determines if the contract is inside or outside IR35.

Other side benefits being:

a. IR35 related insurance would be cheaper as the risk will be reduced. Though if the client is responsible for determining status and the overall financial penalty (based on the agent or fee payer last in the chain ensuring contract clauses pass the financial risk to the client) then it is the client and not contractor (as currently) that will be needing IR35 insurance.
b. HMRC investigations will be curtailed once it's clear the approved/accredited contracts are being used between Client/agency/contractor.
c. Quicker turnaround in the contract initiation process as there will be less need for contractors to request clause changes.

Maybe all this, or the parts that make sense, are already being done behind the scenes and I've just been exercising my keyboard.

From a contractor point of view at post April 2020 there will be less stress as we know where we stand when a client says whether the contract is inside or outside IR35 up front of applying, and any risk is passed from contractor to agency or client if they get it wrong in the eyes of HMRC. Though we've yet to see in court who ends up paying the due taxes for such cases. Don't think there's been much on this from the public sector that already has this in play.