IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[Lance]

and should this post be in the parent accounting/legal forum rather than the 'reform' subforum? It's not about reform and the more eyes on it the better.

[malvolio]

Just a thought - but going to your advisor for an opinion and acting on what they tell you is not ignoring the letter. There's a difference between ignoring the letter and not responding back to HMRC.

However, that said, people need to bee aware that there are risks in both approaches. I'd go with webberg, were it relevant to me, and demand HMRC provides supporting evidence for their assertion - unless my advisor said differently.

[northernladuk]

Just a thought. If HMRC have a list of all PSCs working outside now they'll have a perfect baseline for comparing any inside determinations GSK make approaching April 2020.

If GSK make any inside determination on a contractor that's got that letter they'll be effectively screwing the contractors. HMRC thinks it should be inside and GSK confirm it.

It'll be like mana from heaven for them won't it. How can they not come after the contractor with that information?

Strikes me that the real problem for GSK contractors is not now, it's when the determinations come out.

Thoughts?

[jamesbrown]

There's a difference between ignoring the letter and not responding back to HMRC.

I would've thought it patently obvious that ignoring, in the present context, means to ignore HMRC, rather than to ignore the letter having arrived. It seems obvious to me that DZ2 didn't ignore the letter, but sought advice. The problem is with the advice given, namely for DZ2 to either ignore HMRC or to respond themselves, both of which are terrible pieces of advice and contrary to the seemingly much better approach taken by QDOS.

[webberg]

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.

HMRC has powers that require an agency and/or the end client to tell them about sums paid to individuals under these arrangements.

I suspect GSK and all their agencies have simply complied with their legal requirements and there is no question here about somebody "spilling the beans".

[malvolio]

HMRC has powers that require an agency and/or the end client to tell them about sums paid to individuals under these arrangements.

I suspect GSK and all their agencies have simply complied with their legal requirements and there is no question here about somebody "spilling the beans".

But are GSK paying sums to individuals? After all, the contract will be via an agency in 90% of cases, so the chain is GSK to Agency to PSC (or an umbrella which his out of scope for IR35), which is where it stops. Much as HMRC wishes it were so, the PSC is not the individual.

Once again, using B2B contracts would have stopped this at source. Heigh ho...

[Lance]

HMRC has powers that require an agency and/or the end client to tell them about sums paid to individuals under these arrangements.

I suspect GSK and all their agencies have simply complied with their legal requirements and there is no question here about somebody "spilling the beans".

in that case a DSAR will expose it.
And if any information has been provided that should not have been, then it might be useful for the wider community to know... Don't you think?

The ICO also has teeth, and is the case of a company like GSK, the ICO is probably a bigger threat to their money.

[webberg]

Just to be very clear here.

I have NEVER advised ignoring HMRC letters.

I have ALWAYS said that material from HMRC has to be responded to.

In the present context, we have been considering what type of response to send. Our choices are:

1. Asking for a delay whilst we think about it
2. Getting on the front foot and asking HMRC why they think a client is inside IR35
3. Asking HMRC to justify their actions by reference to the law
4. reviewing clients' positions and supplying the data required.

Or a combination of all of the above.

What we would prefer however is a coordinated strategy to drive the answers rather than an ad hoc and random mix and match approach.

We have anticipated this campaign to a degree and have a broad plan but now that we have seen the calibre and direction of the first shots in what promises to be a long and bitter war, we are sharpening our ordinance. (is that an oxymoron?)

[Lance]

We have anticipated this campaign to a degree and have a broad plan but now that we have seen the calibre and direction of the first shots in what promises to be a long and bitter war, we are sharpening our ordinance. (is that an oxymoron?)

No. It's not an oxymoron. It's a mistake though

*ordnance*

[SussexSeagull]

Just a thought. If HMRC have a list of all PSCs working outside now they'll have a perfect baseline for comparing any inside determinations GSK make approaching April 2020.

If GSK make any inside determination on a contractor that's got that letter they'll be effectively screwing the contractors. HMRC thinks it should be inside and GSK confirm it.

It'll be like mana from heaven for them won't it. How can they not come after the contractor with that information?

Strikes me that the real problem for GSK contractors is not now, it's when the determinations come out.

Thoughts?

Your logic sounds impeccable to me. Sounds like a new strategy of leaving before they decide if you are on our out might have to come into play.