IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[cojak]

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...

That's worse than pretty bad, that's bloody disgraceful; I would ban Accountax for that advice on here.

If it wasn't for the fact that IPSE just got my money for the next year, I would have ditched them immediately.

[BlueSharp]

That's worse than pretty bad, that's bloody disgraceful; I would ban Accountax for that advice on here.

If it wasn't for the fact that IPSE just got my money for the next year, I would have ditched them immediately.

The comment "they offered to review my contract for a fee.." stuck with me. Did the OP get asked what evidence do you have to prove you are outside and their response was none. I can see why they responded with the advice ignore it and they will step in if it goes to a formal investigation. Who knows what QUDOS response will be once they have opened up the claim.

However I'm also concerned, my renewal is the end of this year and I may switch.

[DZ2]

The comment "they offered to review my contract for a fee.." stuck with me. Did the OP get asked what evidence do you have to prove you are outside and their response was none. I can see why they responded with the advice ignore it and they will step in if it goes to a formal investigation. Who knows what QUDOS response will be once they have opened up the claim.

However I'm also concerned, my renewal is the end of this year and I may switch.

No they didn't ask anything about what evidence I have, literally no specific questions; just a very generic conversation. Contract review was mentioned in the very end of our chat, like "Would you like your old contract reviewed for a piece of mind? If you do then have a look at IPSE web site, as IPSE+ members get discounted fee...". Nothing really let to this suggestions (and I had contract reviewed at the time elsewhere so not interested in this now anyway).

[cojak]

Dave Chaplin in LinkedIn

Dave Chaplin on LinkedIn: "The GSK contractors: Don't panic.....but speak to an advisor"

(Tips hat to BlueSharp… )

[webberg]

Where to begin?

The delicious irony that HMRC claims blanket assessment for IR35 is acceptable in certain circumstances and then claims 1500 people no doubt working in hundreds of different ways are all inside IR35?

The fact that HMRC claims to have information indicating that all these people are inside IR35, but has declined to issues assessments or explain what they have?

The fact that the letter seeks to link penalties and not responding when there is no statutory requirement. Blatant coercion.

Generally speaking however, do NOT ignore the letter. If you are insured, speak to the insurer. If not, speak with an adviser.

Whilst you are not obliged to respond it is sensible to do so, even if only to ask for an extension.

You then need to consider your circumstances. By all means run the CEST questionnaire for the role(s) you had in 2018/19 (and 2019/20) and see what result you get. Bearing in mind it's weighted to give an "inside" decision, what do you get?

If it's "outside" and you have answered everything honestly, then the response back to HMRC writes itself.

If it's inside, go and speak to an adviser.

There was a post earlier about the end client anxiously awaiting a flood of requests for holiday pay and employment rights. Why? As we have been discussing elsewhere, there is no legal connection between tax and employment law and the fact that you may be taxed at the same rate and in the same manner (deduction at source) as an employee, does NOT mean you are an employee. If I was advising the end client here, I would not be concerned about this.

I would however - if I was advising the end client - be asking about why such a large and no doubt important part of the workforce has had such letters. I'd be asking what action the agency/intermediary had taken (or not taken) that has led to this situation. I cannot imagine a lot of work being done by contractors at the end client this morning whilst they might also be asking those questions of agencies.

[jamesbrown]

That's worse than pretty bad, that's bloody disgraceful; I would ban Accountax for that advice on here.

If it wasn't for the fact that IPSE just got my money for the next year, I would have ditched them immediately.

Completely agree. Perhaps something was lost in translation, but I doubt it.

IPSE or Accountax can correct the record here if they want.

If they don't, we'll know what to think of them.

(I provided a hook over at IPSE, so they shouldn't miss it if they're paying attention).

[cojak]

Completely agree. Perhaps something was lost in translation, but I doubt it.

IPSE or Accountax can correct the record here if they want.

If they don't, we'll know what to think of them.

(I provided a hook over at IPSE, so they shouldn't miss it if they're paying attention).

I would welcome the correction.

[cojak]

Where to begin?


The fact that the letter seeks to link penalties and not responding when there is no statutory requirement. Blatant coercion.

Generally speaking however, do NOT ignore the letter. If you are insured, speak to the insurer. If not, speak with an adviser.

Right, webberg says that there is no statutory requirement to respond.

So this is where I as a Mod 'draw the line'.

My ruling still stands; anyone who touts 'ignore HMRC' posts will be banned.

You are welcome to offer such advice on other forums, but NOT on CUK.

[cojak]

Right, webberg says that there is no statutory requirement to respond.

So this is where I as a Mod 'draw the line'.

My ruling still stands; anyone who touts 'ignore HMRC' posts will be banned.

You are welcome to offer such advice on other forums, but NOT on CUK.

PS. If you contact your tax advisor and they give you the same advice (which you choose to accept):

• Confirm the Liability Insurance of said tax advisor
• Make sure you get that advice in writing and put it somewhere safe; you may be needing it later.

[Lance]

Dave Chaplin in LinkedIn

Dave Chaplin on LinkedIn: "The GSK contractors: Don't panic.....but speak to an advisor"

(Tips hat to BlueSharp… )

one of the suggestions Dave makes is to do a GDPR DSAR.
I'd suggest doing a DSAR to the agency, GSK and HMRC. Not just one of them. You can ask as part of a DSAR what information has been shared with other parties so you can see how HMRC found out.


Next point.
The letters have, apparently, been sent to PSCs rather than individuals. So there may be no personal information that HMRC have, other than what is available on companies house and via your tax return. If that's the case they may well be within their rights to NOT provide the information, but will still have to respond to the DSAR.

If of course any personal information has been shared then this will have to be disclosed as part of the DSAR response. I imagine that GSK would never do this, and also reckon that GSK may well not even know the names of any PSCs. So this is more likely the agency(ies).

It would be interesting to find out if this is just one agency that GSK use that has spilt the beans. I'll leave it to the affected people to correlate whether there's any truth in this.