PDA

View Full Version : HMRC off payroll decision service



swamp
25th November 2016, 20:32
You can check it out here:

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision-service

matzie
25th November 2016, 20:38
I think this will be useless without the ~/hmrc/off-payroll-decision-service/sheets/kb-rules-01.xls file, won't it?

teapot418
26th November 2016, 19:56
I think this will be useless without the ~/hmrc/off-payroll-decision-service/sheets/kb-rules-01.xls file, won't it?

The json schema gives an indication of what the criteria probably are, so not complete, but not useless either.

Personal service

- right/obligation of substitution, rejection of substitute, who pays, whether exercised
- whether helper can be used and who pays


Control

- told what to do, whether you can be moved (from job to job?)
- how work is done and level of expertise
- when (and who stipulates when)
- where


Financial Risk

- provision of vehicle and who pays
- whether equipment is needed and who provides
- who provides consumables
- who pays for expenses recurs
- how work is paid for

Business structure

- VAT registered
- Business account
- Advertise for work
- Business website
- Pays for training
- Business premises
- Insurance


Part of Organisation

- Receives benefits
- Is a line manager
- Has contact with Engager's customers
- Represents Engager's business


Miscellaneous

- Similar work (I guess similar to employees?)

MPwannadecentincome
26th November 2016, 20:36
is this a joke? HMRC surely would not have placed such sensitive stuff in the public domain yet.

teapot418
26th November 2016, 20:37
is this a joke? HMRC surely would not have placed such sensitive stuff in the public domain yet.

Appears genuine.

eek
26th November 2016, 20:45
Appears genuine.

All HMRC systems are supposed to be open sourced...

youngguy
26th November 2016, 20:56
The json schema gives an indication of what the criteria probably are, so not complete, but not useless either.

Personal service

- right/obligation of substitution, rejection of substitute, who pays, whether exercised
- whether helper can be used and who pays


Control

- told what to do, whether you can be moved (from job to job?)
- how work is done and level of expertise
- when (and who stipulates when)
- where


Financial Risk

- provision of vehicle and who pays
- whether equipment is needed and who provides
- who provides consumables
- who pays for expenses recurs
- how work is paid for

Business structure

- VAT registered
- Business account
- Advertise for work
- Business website
- Pays for training
- Business premises
- Insurance


Part of Organisation

- Receives benefits
- Is a line manager
- Has contact with Engager's customers
- Represents Engager's business


Miscellaneous

- Similar work (I guess similar to employees?)

That doesn't feel that different to the sorts of things now? Dare I suggest most of that (Direction aside) would be quite easy to evidence as being outside?

eek
26th November 2016, 20:59
That doesn't feel that different to the sorts of things now? Dare I suggest most of that (Direction aside) would be quite easy to evidence as being outside?

The problem is the person answering the questions and the level of risk they are willing to accept...

LandRover
27th November 2016, 09:51
The problem is the person answering the questions and the level of risk they are willing to accept...

And the loaded "weighting" for each question, if it works on points per question.

eek
27th November 2016, 09:54
And the loaded "weighting" for each question, if it works on points per question.

You don't get that far. Let's be honest, would you risk your agency's profit to help a supplier or go for the safest and cheapest option for you

bobspud
27th November 2016, 12:20
is this a joke? HMRC surely would not have placed such sensitive stuff in the public domain yet.

No there is tonnes of open source government stuff hiding in plain sight :) we are trying to change the world dontchaknow :)

youngguy
27th November 2016, 20:59
The problem is the person answering the questions and the level of risk they are willing to accept...

Very true.

I asked QDOS what their experience was of agents and they seemed to have a sense that agents were possibly not as unwilling to accept this risk as all of us assumed.

Only time will tell of course.

bobspud
27th November 2016, 21:53
Very true.

I asked QDOS what their experience was of agents and they seemed to have a sense that agents were possibly not as unwilling to accept this risk as all of us assumed.

Only time will tell of course.

Imagine a situation: today a role is released and the hounds start looking for candidates. How long do you think hound a) will stand by and listen to countless candidates telling them to get f*cked because hound b) will do the same role outside IR35?

There is lots of brave shite being spouted on linked in right now but I can tell you the chap I spoke to the other day hadn't thought about the concept that it's the end of the client chain that makes the call and two agents are not the same...

Fun will be had

youngguy
27th November 2016, 22:13
Imagine a situation: today a role is released and the hounds start looking for candidates. How long do you think hound a) will stand by and listen to countless candidates telling them to get f*cked because hound b) will do the same role outside IR35?

There is lots of brave shite being spouted on linked in right now but I can tell you the chap I spoke to the other day hadn't thought about the concept that it's the end of the client chain that makes the call and two agents are not the same...

Fun will be had

So are you saying you think some will use this as somewhat of a USP to differentiate themselves from other agencies ?

jonnyboy
27th November 2016, 22:54
Are we really suggesting this is the question set that will be used on the online tool? That cant be right, can it?
The questions are pretty much the same IR35 questions that have been bouncing around for the last 10 years or so, just maybe some broken down into sub questions. Plus, there has been discussion of 'the tool not being ready on time' - you could knock that tool up in an ASP page in a few minutes. Of course, the detail is.. what is the weighting of the questions. If they all score 1 point but the question "Has own business premises" (or however it is worded) scored 99, then thats a different kettle of fish (assuming that a home office is not a business premises.

I imagine even if these are the questions/test, there will be lots of HMRC guidance and exclusions- such as "Advertising"... "HMRC advises that only those that advertise in the national press, and uses a Wipro or CACI agreed font shall bee deemed as advertising" - otherwise pretty much al of these have an easy get around (run a classified in your local rag for a few weeks for £20).

BlueSharp
28th November 2016, 13:10
Very true.

I asked QDOS what their experience was of agents and they seemed to have a sense that agents were possibly not as unwilling to accept this risk as all of us assumed.

Only time will tell of course.

I think QDOS may well be right. I can see agents operating like this:

Agent (a) is risk adverse and puts all contractors inside ir35 and offeres higher prices in return (possibly lower quality candidate?), starts to loose out to agent (b).

Agent (b) has a business structure to manage the financial risk decalares all contractors outside of ir35 after due dilligence and advise to the end client about how to operate correctly with contractors, every thing continues as was.

Ninja edit: Due dilligence may extend to checking we are real business before engaging with us using the check list proposed above.

MPwannadecentincome
28th November 2016, 13:49
Very true.

I asked QDOS what their experience was of agents and they seemed to have a sense that agents were possibly not as unwilling to accept this risk as all of us assumed.

Only time will tell of course.

QDOS's official statement last week is here https://www.qdoscontractor.com/news/2016/11/25/autumn-statement-2016

Their advice is
We would urge both contractors and agencies not to panic. We are actively speaking to agencies and other key parties with a view to implementing practical, sensible and compliant processes which will ensure those genuinely trading outside IR35 can continue to do so.

eek
28th November 2016, 14:08
QDOS's official statement last week is here https://www.qdoscontractor.com/news/2016/11/25/autumn-statement-2016

Their advice is

And I would adopt a wait and see approach unless you are currently in the public sector.

If you are in the public sector I would, however, be doing my hardest to find a different contract prior to April. The last thing you want is for the contract you've been doing for the past 12 - 18 months suddenly being inside IR35...

marius123
7th December 2016, 14:13
Are we really suggesting this is the question set that will be used on the online tool? That cant be right, can it?
The questions are pretty much the same IR35 questions that have been bouncing around for the last 10 years or so, just maybe some broken down into sub questions.

By default everything goes in the open now unless there's a good reason for it not to be rather than there being any interest in it being out there. I'll be honest I would have thought that this would be a perfect case for keeping the rules matrix etc separate and private.

If you look here you can see the answers to results matrices:
https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/tree/master/conf/tables

Certain combinations of answers lead to a definitive 'Inside' or 'Outside' result, others lead to a high/medium/low weighting that is presumably then combined with the results from other sections (some how). It still is likely some no nothing manager somewhere has to decide what level of 'risk' they're willing to take.

I've run the back end up and had a play with some of the questions/answers and it behaves pretty much as you'd expect. I don't think this is going to be something that brings a lot of clarity for anyone.



Plus, there has been discussion of 'the tool not being ready on time' - you could knock that tool up in an ASP page in a few minutes. O

You've not worked with HMRC digital have you :) It looks like the back end of this is on its way to being done but the front end application has barely been started. Expect a lot of time to sort that out (User Research!). I consider April optimistic.

BoredBloke
8th December 2016, 13:47
So are you saying you think some will use this as somewhat of a USP to differentiate themselves from other agencies ?

I thought it was the end client who were responsible for determining this...not the agency

BoredBloke
8th December 2016, 13:50
So are you saying you think some will use this as somewhat of a USP to differentiate themselves from other agencies ?

I thought it was the end client who were responsible for determining this...not the agency

So PS body have a requirement. They determine that the role is inside ir35 and put it out to the agencies. The agency would have to advertise it as being inside IR35. If they advertised it as outside then surely that would be fraud and also questions would be asked as soon as the first payment is made less the taxes

youngguy
8th December 2016, 15:02
I thought it was the end client who were responsible for determining this...not the agency

It is ...now. At the time I wrote that everyone thought it would be the agency that made the decision

Lance
8th December 2016, 15:21
I thought it was the end client who were responsible for determining this...not the agency

So PS body have a requirement. They determine that the role is inside ir35 and put it out to the agencies. The agency would have to advertise it as being inside IR35. If they advertised it as outside then surely that would be fraud and also questions would be asked as soon as the first payment is made less the taxes

Why would the agency have to advertise it as one or the other?
They'll just play dumb and hope whoever applies doesn't know or care the difference.

If a gig is definitely outside they'll be sure to advertise that though.

LondonManc
8th December 2016, 15:35
Why would the agency have to advertise it as one or the other?
They'll just play dumb and hope whoever applies doesn't ask.

If a gig is definitely outside they'll be sure to advertise that though.

FTFY :)

Andy Hallett
8th December 2016, 21:21
I am testing the new tool tomorrow at HMRC, any requests?

SussexSeagull
8th December 2016, 21:31
I am testing the new tool tomorrow at HMRC, any requests?

Please hand it over to the testers on here. Believe me, we will find something wrong to delay it!

youngguy
8th December 2016, 22:21
I am testing the new tool tomorrow at HMRC, any requests?

Would be interesting to understand how the Q weighting works. Ie do all 55 have to be a y or n to be outside, or is it weighted (like the BETs were )?

Also would be interesting to see from your view the chance of ever being outside (slim I suspect )

mudskipper
8th December 2016, 23:16
I am testing the new tool tomorrow at HMRC, any requests?

What I've seen of it (FTAOD, only what's been posted in the public domain), MOO isn't covered.

mudskipper
8th December 2016, 23:18
Would be interesting to understand how the Q weighting works. Ie do all 55 have to be a y or n to be outside, or is it weighted (like the BETs were )?

Also would be interesting to see from your view the chance of ever being outside (slim I suspect )

If you look at the CSVs on the links that were posted, there is a matrix of combinations.

marius123
9th December 2016, 09:06
If you look at the CSVs on the links that were posted, there is a matrix of combinations.

A lot of the combinations seem to give an intermediate result of 'Low', 'Medium' or 'High'. How these are treated might be nice to know as well as how likely the tool is to give a definitive In/Out answer rather than some kind of inconclusive.

Someone else mentioned MOO. That's a point as well.... Didn't see that.

mudskipper
9th December 2016, 10:59
A lot of the combinations seem to give an intermediate result of 'Low', 'Medium' or 'High'. How these are treated might be nice to know as well as how likely the tool is to give a definitive In/Out answer rather than some kind of inconclusive.

Someone else mentioned MOO. That's a point as well.... Didn't see that.

The 'matrix of matrices' gives the outcome for various combinations.

jonnyboy
9th December 2016, 11:53
I did not see the MOO - is it in the code? Can somebody cut/paste... of course as I type this, I realise that whatever the code looks like then, does not mean thats what the code and matrix looks like now, or what it will be come April. Doh

youngguy
9th December 2016, 12:00
Has this been pulled ? I get a 404 when I click on the link in the first thread

mudskipper
9th December 2016, 12:09
Has this been pulled ? I get a 404 when I click on the link in the first thread

CSVs are here

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/tree/master/conf/tables

mudskipper
9th December 2016, 12:09
I did not see the MOO - is it in the code? Can somebody cut/paste... of course as I type this, I realise that whatever the code looks like then, does not mean thats what the code and matrix looks like now, or what it will be come April. Doh

No, the point was that there apparently is no test for MOO.

eek
9th December 2016, 12:31
No, the point was that there apparently is no test for MOO.

Come on the test is designed to only use the parts of law HMRC win points on (note points not cases)

Andy Hallett
9th December 2016, 17:03
Interesting day

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161209/44ba4b7b6a30f179c9b9c09550f4bf4d.jpg

SueEllen
9th December 2016, 17:06
Interesting day

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161209/44ba4b7b6a30f179c9b9c09550f4bf4d.jpg

Wrong colour :p

Andy Hallett
9th December 2016, 17:14
I am in recruitment. I had enough trouble ditching the fat knotted tie and Gucci loafers to worry about the case.

youngguy
9th December 2016, 18:08
Attending the ipse webinar today it hit home the point that several agencies have seen the tool, yet ipse have not yet.

Andy, share your thoughts!

Andy Hallett
9th December 2016, 20:08
It was a decent afternoon and I learnt a fair bit. Will post something extensive up later this evening.

Andy Hallett
9th December 2016, 22:04
Attending the ipse webinar today it hit home the point that several agencies have seen the tool, yet ipse have not yet.

Andy, share your thoughts!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/budget-service-being-ok-too-slow-andy-hallett?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish

youngguy
10th December 2016, 09:14
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/budget-service-being-ok-too-slow-andy-hallett?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publish

Thanks Andy,

So the biggest Q probably is your feel for how many will be inside based on the Qs and how they are worded? Is it pretty much a catch all?

Also, do you think the tool would give the same outcome regardless of who completes it (by this I mean is it likely the end client will answer differently based on their limited knowledge )?

Thirdly, do the testers include those involved in case law, or is it just HMRC folk?

Finally, if it is just 50 Qs and a decision tree, why do you think it will take 3months to complete? Maybe I am being cynical but I wonder whether delivering it last minute is part of the plan so that people have little time to digest it?

Andy Hallett
10th December 2016, 11:40
My feeling for most Public Sector workers is they will be deemed inside IR35. A lot of the work we do in healthcare is very much subject to SDC.

This service has probably captured the majority of questions that anyone understanding IR35 would ask. There is a pseudo MOO question in there, basically what happens if you don't turn up.

March should be fine, I genuinely don't think they are as cunning as that and it's probably in their interests to have it out there as it will push more people inside.

meanttobeworking
4th January 2017, 22:28
There is a pseudo MOO question in there, basically what happens if you don't turn up.

Would you mind elaborating on this? If it's a case of "do you get paid if you don't turn up?", I'm assuming 99.9% of contracts would say "no", so either this is is the silver bullet we all wish existed or I'm misunderstanding. No doubt it's the latter :)

Andy Hallett
10th January 2017, 16:58
Would you mind elaborating on this? If it's a case of "do you get paid if you don't turn up?", I'm assuming 99.9% of contracts would say "no", so either this is is the silver bullet we all wish existed or I'm misunderstanding. No doubt it's the latter :)

Few weeks ago now, but from memory I recall it actually more relates to the "will you get fired" for not turning up bit. EG can you waltz in and out as you choose and decline work etc.

Yorkie62
11th January 2017, 07:28
Is it possible to read anything into the published test scenarios for the online tool

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/tree/master/test/resources/test-scenarios

administrator
11th January 2017, 17:13
A reader just emailed in about this so checked it out again. Looks like the HMRC dev team are back on it as been quite a few commits the last few days and a front end is available as well now.

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-frontend

Just asking permission from the reader to publish his comments, or sign up for an account and post himself, as he has highlighted some interesting bits in the code. Will be back in a mo...

LondonManc
11th January 2017, 17:36
Few weeks ago now, but from memory I recall it actually more relates to the "will you get fired" for not turning up bit. EG can you waltz in and out as you choose and decline work etc.

I am the MD of my limited company. It will take something exceptional for me to fire myself.

administrator
11th January 2017, 17:50
Here are the reader's comments:


I have been browsing the HMRC github site and have found this;
https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision

which looks like that code for the tool that the public sector bodies might be using.

Some of the code is quite interesting - especially this (https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/blob/master/test/resources/schema/off-payroll-request-schema.json) which basically tells you what sort of questions they will ask, and then also anything in here; https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/tree/master/test/resources/test-scenarios/single

which shows some scenarios and their outcome. I am yet to understand if 'Low' means "Low chance of being caught in IR35" or "Low chance of being outside of IR35"... For instance;
https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/blob/master/test/resources/test-scenarios/single/personal-service/scenarios.csv

eek
11th January 2017, 18:34
Here are the reader's comments:

Given the utter insanity of the example JSON files I've looked at I think its just gibberish for testing at the moment and doesn't match any real test...

Andy Hallett
15th January 2017, 20:19
I am the MD of my limited company. It will take something exceptional for me to fire myself.

Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Along the lines will the contract be terminated for cause.

meanttobeworking
17th January 2017, 10:23
I know this is preaching to the converted, but surely if the department in charge of IR35, given the opportunity to ask *any questions they like* through this tool, can only give a High / Medium / Low result rather than a Yes / No, it's a clear demonstration that the whole thing is madness?

If they can't tell us, how are we meant to figure it out?

BoredBloke
17th January 2017, 10:32
I know this is preaching to the converted, but surely if the department in charge of IR35, given the opportunity to ask *any questions they like* through this tool, can only give a High / Medium / Low result rather than a Yes / No, it's a clear demonstration that the whole thing is madness?

If they can't tell us, how are we meant to figure it out?

I think HMRC are hoping that the conservative nature of the public sector will make all the contracts offered on an inside ir35 basis. That said, how many cases have HMRC won regarding IR35. I fail to see how a few yes/no questions can give a full status outcome given the amount of case law surrounding the subject. If IR35 was so clear cut HMRC wouldn't have lost so many cases.

What would happen if a contractor fought the inside decision and won...there would be a whole raft of contractors looking to recoup the tax incorrectly extracted.

Andy Hallett
17th January 2017, 21:56
I have heard a little rumour. Normally wait until I have two unconnected people confirm.

So one person from within government and one from within the accountancy profession tell me that the final draft legislation will move the financial liability fully to the Public Sector Body.

Whilst great news for us proper agencies who will have a level playing field against the ignorant and the criminal, I suspect any chance the chances of getting an outside IR35 determination will diminish IF this information is true.

difficulttimes
17th January 2017, 22:18
I have heard a little rumour. Normally wait until I have two unconnected people confirm.

So one person from within government and one from within the accountancy profession tell me that the final draft legislation will move the financial liability fully to the Public Sector Body.

Whilst great news for us proper agencies who will have a level playing field against the ignorant and the criminal, I suspect any chance the chances of getting an outside IR35 determination will diminish IF this information is true.

confused.com but wasn't that always the case that it was transferred from the agency to the PS body?
Why is it great news for proper agencies? Is this to do with dodgy brolly companies?

Andy Hallett
17th January 2017, 22:34
confused.com but wasn't that always the case that it was transferred from the agency to the PS body?
Why is it great news for proper agencies? Is this to do with dodgy brolly companies?

The draft legislation has it that determination is the Public Sector body. If they say it was outside IR35, and it later turns out not to be, the 'payer', is responsible for the Tax and NI.

We therefore have no responsibility for the decision but all the liability!

The cynic in me thinks that some agencies might use this lack of liability to convince psec organisation to take a punt on any old assignment, taking a calculated risk knowing full well that if the tax man comes knocking they will phoenix.

As a £400m listed business that's not really an option for us.

difficulttimes
17th January 2017, 22:46
The draft legislation has it that determination is the Public Sector body. If they say it was outside IR35, and it later turns out not to be, the 'payer', is responsible for the Tax and NI.

We therefore have no responsibility for the decision but all the liability!

The cynic in me thinks that some agencies might use this lack of liability to convince psec organisation to take a punt on any old assignment, taking a calculated risk knowing full well that if the tax man comes knocking they will phoenix.

As a £400m listed business that's not really an option for us.

Fair enough but I'm sure there would have been IR35 insurance packages offered for businesses as we all know that the likelihood of them coming back like that is very minimal. If it was that high why are there tens of thousands of Ltd. company contractors out there and they still sleep at night.

Are PS recruitment agencies not doomed then? If the end client makes the decision, all the responsibility etc. then why cant the PS body go out and recruit a contractor directly? Am I missing something?

Andy Hallett
17th January 2017, 22:58
Fair enough but I'm sure there would have been IR35 insurance packages offered for businesses as we all know that the likelihood of them coming back like that is very minimal. If it was that high why are there tens of thousands of Ltd. company contractors out there and they still sleep at night.

The likelihood is very high. An investigation into 1000 contractors at an agency will yield more, and be significantly more efficient than a thousand individual investigations. I'd imagine the revenue will start will the highest RTI reports and work backwards.

The uncomfortable truth is that the vast majority of contractors are inside IR35 but the sheer volume of contractors has made it impossible to police. IR35 has largely been ignored because of the fundamental lack of enforcement.

Think of it as one of those nice Attenborough films. Currently of the wildebeest make it past the lions with only the odd straggler being picked off. The vast majority of the herd just pile on oblivious to the danger.

By making agencies and the clients police it, they've corralled the herd.

Andy Hallett
17th January 2017, 23:04
Are PS recruitment agencies not doomed then? If the end client makes the decision, all the responsibility etc. then why cant the PS body go out and recruit a contractor directly? Am I missing something?

Not at all. The supply and demand is still there, £5bn interim spend in the NHS last year wasn't for fun.

Nothing to stop PSec hiring directly, they will have to do the deductions etc. I think this is where we will see an increase in our business by managing those currently direct.

1) will they want to take on the enhanced deemed employment risk? E.g. If they deem someone a disguised employee then do employment rights apply?

2) their payroll systems won't be able to cope with deemed payments, it's not the same as PAYE with legitimate deductions & VAT etc.

difficulttimes
17th January 2017, 23:06
The likelihood is very high. An investigation into 1000 contractors at an agency will yield more, and be significantly more efficient than a thousand individual investigations. I'd imagine the revenue will start will the highest RTI reports and work backwards.

The uncomfortable truth is that the vast majority of contractors are inside IR35 but the sheer volume of contractors has made it impossible to police. IR35 has largely been ignored because of the fundamental lack of enforcement.

Think of it as one of those nice Attenborough films. Currently of the wildebeest make it past the lions with only the odd straggler being picked off. The vast majority of the herd just pile on oblivious to the danger.

By making agencies and the clients police it, they've corralled the herd.

Beg to disagree as IR35 is individual and as such you can't do a wholesale investigation - each person has different working practices so HMRC will still have to investigate each single person. That is how it is today and that will be the same. Ask QDOS or IPSE who sell the insurance as they are best placed to manage risk etc.. And remember they will have to take each person to a tribunal if it isn't settled out of court etc. It's not like they can write a letter saying all of you guys at X Group owe us £10k in IT and £5 in NI each can you pay up within 90 days or else.

Ltd. companies aren't a tax avoidance scheme..

northernladuk
17th January 2017, 23:08
It might be individual but if you are working in a same organisation with the same culture/working practices/contract /framework you cease to be an individual. You become a number.

difficulttimes
17th January 2017, 23:12
It might be individual but if you are working in a same organisation with the same culture/working practices/contract /framework you cease to be an individual. You become a number.

I asked the exact same question and was told it is still individual because how you work could be different to the guy next to you. If it was by group then you would have seen far more IR35 cases going forward.

Also, I should add that they can only make an enquiry into your tax return that you filed for that year.

Sorry, but I do get frustrated that people think the legislation has changed and suddenly there is an army of HMRC investigators working on this. Speaking of which someone told me today that HMRC win 50% of their IR35 cases - I was like 50% of what exactly? I've heard of the BBC which isn't really a win. Feels like more scare-mongering.

Andy Hallett
17th January 2017, 23:17
Beg to disagree as IR35 is individual and as such you can't do a wholesale investigation - each person has different working practices so HMRC will still have to investigate each single person. That is how it is today and that will be the same. Ask QDOS or IPSE who sell the insurance as they are best placed to manage risk etc.. And remember they will have to take each person to a tribunal if it isn't settled out of court etc. It's not like they can write a letter saying all of you guys at X Group owe us £10k in IT and £5 in NI each can you pay up within 90 days or else.

Ltd. companies aren't a tax avoidance scheme..

But this is the point, they don't have to take each person to a tribunal, the liability is not the contractors anymore, it has moved to the payer. If someone pays you as outside, you are home and hosed......

Ok, lets say I work for Dodgy Recruitment Ltd (no jokes please).

- We run 100 contractors in the Public Sector, one of whom is contractor A
- Either the PSEC body has determined it's outside IR35 or we've failed to do deductions.
- There is an individual investigation into contractor A.

If you were HMRC, would you:

1) Investigate the other 99 contractors and send a big bill to agency?
2) Go hunting randomly for contractor B?

The same will apply to public sector bodies who have a lot of outside determinations. The herd will have a big target on them. As stated at the top, it's not your problem now if you've been paid as outside.

difficulttimes
17th January 2017, 23:22
But this is the point, they don't have to take each person to a tribunal, the liability is not the contractors anymore, it has moved to the payer. If someone pays you as outside, you are home and hosed......

Ok, lets say I work for Dodgy Recruitment Ltd (no jokes please).

- We run 100 contractors in the Public Sector, one of whom is contractor A
- Either the PSEC body has determined it's outside IR35 or we've failed to do deductions.
- There is an individual investigation into contractor A.

If you were HMRC, would you:

1) Investigate the other 99 contractors and send a big bill to agency?
2) Go hunting randomly for contractor B?

The same will apply to public sector bodies who have a lot of outside determinations. The herd will have a big target on them. As stated at the top, it's not your problem now if you've been paid as outside.

But last time I checked HMRC aren't judge, jury and executioner - there will have to abide by the existing policies and procedures for opening an enquiry.

Andy Hallett
17th January 2017, 23:38
But last time I checked HMRC aren't judge, jury and executioner - there will have to abide by the existing policies and procedures for opening an enquiry.

Yep, and guess which hunting ground they'll start.

The point is, they don't need to catch everyone. They just need agencies and PSEC bodies to fear being caught to force the majority inside. Previously they had no skin in the game, they do now.

Don't get me wrong, we'll push for anyone genuinely outside to that determination and support them accordingly. But there is a financial risk I have to mitigate come April that we don't currently have.

eek
18th January 2017, 07:24
But last time I checked HMRC aren't judge, jury and executioner - there will have to abide by the existing policies and procedures for opening an enquiry.

No to open an enquiry all they have to do is have evidence that they suspect the contract isinside IR35 not outside and send a kick off letter. Currently its difficult to identify IR35 cases full stop, but come April there is a readily available dataset of cases worth investigating...

LondonManc
18th January 2017, 09:52
Andy,

Potentially another service you could sell in to PS - IR35 determination based on experience. While you've possibly in the past made contracts more IR35-friendly and let the contractor worry about the working practices, you're in a better position than the PS to say which contracts should and shouldn't be inside IR35.

I'd imagine (and it's purely a finger in the wind) that 60-80% of all contractors who are declared outside at the moment should actually be inside. I'd also suspect that you could provide sample contracts and a list of roles combined with experience levels to give better guidelines to PS bodies as to which, say, 65% of those contracts would be inside. Hector gets his pound of flesh and we all have to accept that some have had it too good for too long. There are people in the office that I am in that are outside IR35 that I'd suspect should be inside IR35.

eek
18th January 2017, 10:01
No to open an enquiry all they have to do is have evidence that they suspect the contract isinside IR35 not outside and send a kick off letter. Currently its difficult to identify IR35 cases full stop, but come April there is a readily available dataset of cases worth investigating...

I think its worth being clear here.

HMRC only need to send out letters. Even if 50% of people object and pass the letter to IPSE or others to deal with that still gives them a 50% success rate as those without advice pay up.

And if HMRC swamp IPSE and others with more work than they can handle that to HMRC would be a win as well...

The thing to remember here is that HMRC can take what was once a lot of work individually identifying cases and instead adopt the blanket approach they nowadays prefer...

BoredBloke
18th January 2017, 11:10
Only hmrc could come up with a system where the tax status of A is determined by C and the liability is held by B.

jamesbrown
18th January 2017, 12:32
Only hmrc could come up with a system where the tax status of A is determined by C and the liability is held by B.

:laugh So true.

Semtex
18th January 2017, 14:31
I think its worth being clear here.

HMRC only need to send out letters. Even if 50% of people object and pass the letter to IPSE or others to deal with that still gives them a 50% success rate as those without advice pay up.

And if HMRC swamp IPSE and others with more work than they can handle that to HMRC would be a win as well...

The thing to remember here is that HMRC can take what was once a lot of work individually identifying cases and instead adopt the blanket approach they nowadays prefer...

Sorry don't get it.

What has changed? HMRC has always known about circa 14,000 PS contractors? IR35 hasn't changed....

eek
18th January 2017, 14:34
Sorry don't get it.

What has changed? HMRC has always known about circa 14,000 PS contractors? IR35 hasn't changed....

They now have the NI numbers (and from that the names and addresses) of those people in a readily accessible report.....

Write scary letter (or 3), run mail merge and your done....

Semtex
18th January 2017, 14:52
They now have the NI numbers (and from that the names and addresses) of those people in a readily accessible report.....

Write scary letter (or 3), run mail merge and your done....

But HMRC have had these for a while now. Nothing in IR35 has changed, just from April (or sooner TFL) will organisations just change their models with regards to contractors through LTD companies. Majority will have to be brollys now.

eek
18th January 2017, 15:01
But HMRC have had these for a while now. Nothing in IR35 has changed, just from April (or sooner TFL) will organisations just change their models with regards to contractors through LTD companies. Majority will have to be brollys now.

You are missing something - currently they have NI details but no idea where people are actually working or what they are doing - that list has little value and still isn't being used by anything as shown by the fact my FOI requests asking for data collected from said system still aren't being answered (because they aren't using the data).

Come April they will have new list (tax payers perceived by their end client to be inside IR35) and that is a far more interesting list to play with especially when you merge it with the previous one...

Now I do know slightly more on the grapevine than I'm letting on here so I'll leave it at that...

youngguy
18th January 2017, 15:54
They just need agencies and PSEC bodies to fear being caught to force the majority inside. Previously they had no skin in the game, they do now.

Dare I say this is quite clever of old Hector. No resources to police, so move liability, which increases the risk for ps and agencies, resulting in a behavioural change from them.

Let's hope said agencies and ps recognise if they want decent people and to keep projects running they will have to alter rates.

The TFL case is going to be interesting in terms of how many stay and suck it up/bend over and how many walk

youngguy
18th January 2017, 15:58
But HMRC have had these for a while now. Nothing in IR35 has changed, just from April (or sooner TFL) will organisations just change their models with regards to contractors through LTD companies. Majority will have to be brollys now.

The different is right now if a contractor is caught, they foot the bill. Come April that will either be the ps or the agency and neither is likely keen on taking the risk, for fear of HMRC then looking at ALL contractors on their books.

LondonManc
18th January 2017, 15:59
Dare I say this is quite clever of old Hector. No resources to police, so move liability, which increases the risk for ps and agencies, resulting in a behavioural change from them.

Let's hope said agencies and ps recognise if they want decent people and to keep projects running they will have to alter rates.

The TFL case is going to be interesting in terms of how many stay and suck it up/bend over and how many walk

The TFL case still won't turn the heads of most BoS contractors in the PS who will be getting their own shafting in due course. How many happily drop into PAYE probably depends on their expenses.

MPwannadecentincome
18th January 2017, 17:33
The different is right now if a contractor is caught, they foot the bill. Come April that will either be the ps or the agency and neither is likely keen on taking the risk, for fear of HMRC then looking at ALL contractors on their books.

The agency might then go after the contractor? Those who have QDOS or IPSE are protected, the rest may or may not give in and pay up.

northernladuk
18th January 2017, 17:40
The agency might then go after the contractor? Those who have QDOS or IPSE are protected, the rest may or may not give in and pay up.

They are? I can't believe any existing products will payout in the same way with such a massive change? Surely the T&Cs will change now the risk factor has changed so much?

But I'm not sure the comment about coming after the contractor is true though.

youngguy
18th January 2017, 19:08
The agency might then go after the contractor? Those who have QDOS or IPSE are protected, the rest may or may not give in and pay up.

I suppose agencies may have new clauses in their contract which states any liability found in the future comes back on the contractor.

As for insurance, I'd guess there may be some changes in their clauses as well....or at least a rather large hike in cost.