IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors - Page 3
Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 282
  1. #21

    Fingers like lightning

    BlueSharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Have these letters been addressed to to PSC or the contractor?

    Thinking about this a little more is this an attempt to sort those contractors who have been organised and can mount a defence (i.e. can respond with evidence) vs those who have nothing and could become higher priority targets for further investigation as they no proof.
    Last edited by BlueSharp; 27th August 2019 at 09:38.

  2. #22

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSharp View Post
    Have these letters been addressed to to PSC or the contractor?
    The couple we've seen have been addressed to the PSC, no mention of the personal name of the director/shareholder.

    I do worry that this could lead to the unfair situation where two contractors did the same role, one has QDOS/IPSE/whoever on their side and scare HMRC off with a swift rebuttal, whilst the other doesn't and caves.

  3. #23

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    40,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maslins View Post
    I do worry that this could lead to the unfair situation where two contractors did the same role, one has QDOS/IPSE/whoever on their side and scare HMRC off with a swift rebuttal, whilst the other doesn't and caves.
    Well... it's a tough post but being devils advocate here. how is that unfair? One acts properly, does their diligence and pays for the correct cover, the other doesn't. What would be unfair is if QDOS/IPSE whoever take on the work from the people that haven't paid because 'we are all contractors' or something like that and these orgs spend the money from the paying clients to support those that haven't paid because 'it's not fair'.

    Just putting that out there for discussion...

    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  4. #24

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maslins View Post
    The couple we've seen have been addressed to the PSC, no mention of the personal name of the director/shareholder.

    I do worry that this could lead to the unfair situation where two contractors did the same role, one has QDOS/IPSE/whoever on their side and scare HMRC off with a swift rebuttal, whilst the other doesn't and caves.
    ** NLUK beat me to it! **

    Why unfair? If the contractor has done their due diligence via QDOS etc then isn't that part of conducting your business affairs properly?
    Last edited by ShandyDrinker; 27th August 2019 at 11:21.

  5. #25

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    What ladymuck says but could you also tell us what happens when you speak to Ipse. There has been lots of debate about why you need both TLC35 and IPSE+
    I've got both as well so would be very interesting to see what happens now you have to opportunity to use both. Could end the discussion as to whether both is a waste of time or not.
    Thanks all for support.

    Regarding IPSE vs QDOS comparison: so far it seems that QDOS are taking this more seriously.

    IPSE have forwarded my info to Accountax Consulting who called today. Their advice is: you can ignore the letter as it's not a formal investigation, or you can choose to respond (yourself) providing the details supporting your case, and if you wish you can also enclose the copy of CEST tool confirmation of you being outside. No offer of representation. Oh and they've offered to review my old contract for a fee...

    QDOS have suggested to open the claim under my policy and will handle all the correspondence with HMRC on my behalf from now on; they have explicitly said do not respond yourself.

    I'm a little disappointed with IPSE approach (but perhaps they'd be more helpful in case of a real investigation?), so I'm going to go with QDOS (hopefully they won't reject my claim).

    @BlueSharp: HMRC letter is addressed to my company, not me personally.

  6. #26

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    966

    Default

    I have worked with contractors who on paper were doing the same role as me but I took steps to keep myself out of IR35 through working practices and they went native. What WOULD be unfair is people who kept an eye on working practices getting lumped ion with those who tried to be teacher's pet to get another month out of the client.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DZ2 View Post
    Thanks all for support.

    Regarding IPSE vs QDOS comparison: so far it seems that QDOS are taking this more seriously.

    IPSE have forwarded my info to Accountax Consulting who called today. Their advice is: you can ignore the letter as it's not a formal investigation, or you can choose to respond (yourself) providing the details supporting your case, and if you wish you can also enclose the copy of CEST tool confirmation of you being outside. No offer of representation. Oh and they've offered to review my old contract for a fee...

    QDOS have suggested to open the claim under my policy and will handle all the correspondence with HMRC on my behalf from now on; they have explicitly said do not respond yourself.

    I'm a little disappointed with IPSE approach (but perhaps they'd be more helpful in case of a real investigation?), so I'm going to go with QDOS (hopefully they won't reject my claim).

    @BlueSharp: HMRC letter is addressed to my company, not me personally.
    Wow, that's pretty bad. TBF to IPSE, this sounds like advice from Accountax, rather than IPSE. Accountax have a good reputation, but that is horrible advice IMHO. Any Accountax or IPSE folks care to comment?

    If the above is true, and you've suggested that people could, or even should, respond themselves, your reputation is at stake...

  8. #28

    Fingers like lightning

    BlueSharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DZ2 View Post
    Thanks all for support.

    Regarding IPSE vs QDOS comparison: so far it seems that QDOS are taking this more seriously.

    IPSE have forwarded my info to Accountax Consulting who called today. Their advice is: you can ignore the letter as it's not a formal investigation, or you can choose to respond (yourself) providing the details supporting your case, and if you wish you can also enclose the copy of CEST tool confirmation of you being outside. No offer of representation. Oh and they've offered to review my old contract for a fee...

    QDOS have suggested to open the claim under my policy and will handle all the correspondence with HMRC on my behalf from now on; they have explicitly said do not respond yourself.

    I'm a little disappointed with IPSE approach (but perhaps they'd be more helpful in case of a real investigation?), so I'm going to go with QDOS (hopefully they won't reject my claim).

    @BlueSharp: HMRC letter is addressed to my company, not me personally.

    Thanks for the IPSE vs QUDOS information. I would of expected Accountax to have taken over so I'm surprised they have washed their hands of it.

  9. #29

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    1,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShandyDrinker View Post
    Why unfair? If the contractor has done their due diligence via QDOS etc then isn't that part of conducting your business affairs properly?
    I agree, but was thinking from HMRC's perspective. Ie the primary argument for IR35 is that two people doing the same role should pay the same taxes. If HMRC shy away from those well protected whilst hounding those who aren't goes against what they claim their goal is.

    If everything else is the same, one party paying for an insurance whilst another doesn't shouldn't be the legitimate argument for one being inside IR35, the other outside.

  10. #30

    Fingers like lightning

    BlueSharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maslins View Post
    I agree, but was thinking from HMRC's perspective. Ie the primary argument for IR35 is that two people doing the same role should pay the same taxes. If HMRC shy away from those well protected whilst hounding those who aren't goes against what they claim their goal is.

    If everything else is the same, one party paying for an insurance whilst another doesn't shouldn't be the legitimate argument for one being inside IR35, the other outside.
    You're looking at it the wrong way. Providing evidence and a solid defence allows HMRC to shut down the enquiry faster or even before it begins. Not being able to provide that information means it's worth while digging deeper, especially if the contractor does not have tax investigation insurance then there is a cost of either settling or defending the case.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •