IR35: Period working for 1 client

[ASB]

In principle it is the case that the IR35 obligations rest with the individual.

However there is least the theoretical possibility that the debt (if any were established) could be transferred to the end client. In order for this to happen the OP would have to not pay them and be shown to be neglectful. Quit a hurdle. In any event this would only get them transferred to the agency. So it would then the the case that they would need to be in default and also neglect could be established (at least that is my reading that the transfer provisions become sequential rather than conferring joint and several liability further up the contractual chain. There is also some doubt as to whether the transfer provisions would even be capable of being applied at all in these circumstances).

If HR legals want to worry about it they might be better served by considering whether their actions (in addition to this) have established an employee/employer relationship under tax laws (almost certainly not) and/or employment law (given the different definitions involved). The latter is more likely (or rather simply very slightly less improbable) due to the broader definition of the term "worker".

As far as I am aware this has only happened in Muscat v Cable and Wireless at an ET. However this had some very specific and unusual circumstances.

[shoes]

Everyones an idiot. HTH

[Fred Bloggs]

For the future a much safer arrangement is to use a contractor's scheme that involves an EBT. It is IR35 proof and the contractor's take home pay is about 80% or slightly more of billed fees.

Yeah, this is where we get to hear about the EBT scheme that you just happen to run eh?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

These arrangements are fraught with IR35 risk. So much depends on the contract details. If trouble looms one of the leading experst in ths field is Dave Smith of Accountax Consulting at Trinity House in Milton Keynes. Dave Smith has the best record of defeating the Revenue.

For the future a much safer arrangement is to use a contractor's scheme that involves an EBT. It is IR35 proof and the contractor's take home pay is about 80% or slightly more of billed fees.

Spam. Misleading at that (in my not very humble opinion of course)

[TheFaQQer]

For the future a much safer arrangement is to use a contractor's scheme that involves an EBT. It is IR35 proof and the contractor's take home pay is about 80% or slightly more of billed fees.

Apparently (and I don't think there has been much coverage on CUK recently), the government might be looking into clamping down on these. I think that if you search for BN66 there may be one or two posts about it somewhere.

HTH.

[Not So Wise]

Tell them to read the history of IR35, it was specifically written to protect clients from liability thanks to heavy lobbying. IR35 has nothing to do with client (or agency) which is why we sometimes have to seriously fight to get IR35 compliant contracts/working conditions

[jimjamuk]

try and use it to your advantage - make sure they agree to letting your working practices work in favour of being outside of IR35 (if you are not already)

[NotAllThere]

...
For the future a much safer arrangement is to use a contractor's scheme that involves an EBT. It is IR35 proof and the contractor's take home pay is about 80% or slightly more of billed fees.

Based on this idiotic comment, can I suggest that his posting description remains, forever, at "Not worth listening to".