PDA

View Full Version : The Decision Tool :)



bobspud
27th February 2017, 11:25
https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision

bigglesworth
27th February 2017, 14:14
Interesting to see, with the help of google and friends, that a contributing developer is indeed a contractor too.

hollyblue
27th February 2017, 18:51
https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision

Is anyone able to decipher this for me please ?! .......

Kingman66
27th February 2017, 19:23
Apparently it will be ready on Thursday :bang:

Yorkie62
27th February 2017, 19:27
Apparently it will be ready on Thursday :bang:

Yes but which Thursday?:tumble:

Mordac
27th February 2017, 19:53
Yes but which Thursday?:tumble:

And which HMRC-approved definition of "ready" applies here?

MonkeyWorld
27th February 2017, 19:55
Find the spreadsheet amiungst all that source and tells you the Q's, and the weighting of what responses lead to what outcomes. All V revealing, and assuming nothing changes there gonna struggle to get anywhere near 90% caught

vwdan
27th February 2017, 19:59
Find the spreadsheet amiungst all that source and tells you the Q's, and the weighting of what responses lead to what outcomes. All V revealing, and assuming nothing changes there gonna struggle to get anywhere near 90% caught

Don't be lazy:

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/tree/master/conf/tables/1.0.0-final

Edit: WTF is going on with the financial risk one:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/master/conf/tables/1.0.0-final/financial-risk.csv

That reads to me that if you provide materials or equipment then you're outside, lock stock?

MonkeyWorld
27th February 2017, 20:48
Or even...

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/blob/master/docs/1.0.0-final.xlsx



Don't be lazy:

https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/tree/master/conf/tables/1.0.0-final

Edit: WTF is going on with the financial risk one:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/master/conf/tables/1.0.0-final/financial-risk.csv

That reads to me that if you provide materials or equipment then you're outside, lock stock?

RonBW
27th February 2017, 21:01
The source code may well be open source (as announced a while ago), but the decision spreadsheets that they have made available are unlikely to be the final ones I would bet.

bobspud
28th February 2017, 08:06
The source code may well be open source (as announced a while ago), but the decision spreadsheets that they have made available are unlikely to be the final ones I would bet.

they have no way to keep it secret. After all its going to be the subject of a tax tribunal case soon and if that doesn't get you to it then FOI will be more than capable.

Pherlopolus
28th February 2017, 08:45
Seems Outside would also seem to be the case if you have to travel to other sites (assuming you are working at a fixed sites) but had to pay for your own travel/hotel costs.

fxc
28th February 2017, 09:43
Seems Outside would also seem to be the case if you have to travel to other sites (assuming you are working at a fixed sites) but had to pay for your own travel/hotel costs.

also looks like if you have a clause in your contract that says you have to put right any work the client is not happy with in your own time and without additional pay, that also results in an outside verdict?

northernladuk
28th February 2017, 09:50
Both will help but I doubt on their own they will.

fxc
28th February 2017, 09:55
also looks like if you have a clause in your contract that says you have to put right any work the client is not happy with in your own time and without additional pay, that also results in an outside verdict?

if this was a "fix" would people be happy to take the risk and sign up to this?

Pherlopolus
28th February 2017, 09:56
Without seeing the final logic table, it appears the the travel costs would be an "Outside" rather than "Continue", of course it depends if you get a definite "Inside" flag in an earlier section.

Not that I have any plans to head to the public sector just yet, except if the rate is good and location is close to home.

northernladuk
28th February 2017, 09:56
if this was a "fix" would people be happy to take the risk and sign up to this?

You should already have this in your contract. It's a good pointer to outside whether you are in the PS or not. If you don't understand that I'd suggest people have been playing tickbox IR35 (badly).

If you are 'signing up' to things like this just pass the test then you are already inside IR35 and you should be very worried about retrospective action.

difficulttimes
28th February 2017, 09:58
So if you get this would the end client take the default position that you are 'inside'?

fxc
28th February 2017, 10:00
You should already have this in your contract. It's a good pointer to outside whether you are in the PS or not. If you don't understand that I'd suggest people have been playing tickbox IR35 (badly).

If you are 'signing up' to things like this just pass the test then you are already inside IR35 and you should be very worried about retrospective action.

in my experience there is usually a clause along these lines, however it tends to be "soft" and in practice the client and contractor have tended to come to agreement. The work is usually not done in own time, for example, and is often still paid for to some degree.

Im saying if it were "hard" would be people be down with that?

northernladuk
28th February 2017, 10:16
So if you get this would the end client take the default position that you are 'inside'?

We don't really know but one clause isn't going to really call it.

northernladuk
28th February 2017, 10:18
in my experience there is usually a clause along these lines, however it tends to be "soft" and in practice the client and contractor have tended to come to agreement. The work is usually not done in own time, for example, and is often still paid for to some degree.

Im saying if it were "hard" would be people be down with that?

They have to be else the clause will be a sham. You signed for it so you are obliged to do it should the situation arise.

fxc
28th February 2017, 10:44
in other related news, I heard yesterday evening that the cabinet office are likely to make an announcement this week delaying this whole thing as "nothing is ready"...

you can prob take that with a massive pinch of salt, but its what ive heard, fingers crossed

perplexed
28th February 2017, 10:47
in other related news, I heard yesterday evening that the cabinet office are likely to make an announcement this week delaying this whole thing as "nothing is ready"...

you can prob take that with a massive pinch of salt, but its what ive heard, fingers crossed

Or as it's known, deliberately introduce delay, wait for people to have signed new contracts March / April time out of a false sense of security that it'll be scrapped and then nail lots of people.

eek
28th February 2017, 10:50
Or as it's known, deliberately introduce delay, wait for people to have signed new contracts March / April time out of a false sense of security that it'll be scrapped and then nail lots of people.

Delaying doesn't solve anything. The damage of people leaving has already been done and a few renewals won't change the pie HMRC are chasing after.

That isn't to say I don't believe it will be delayed - the idea of delaying this train wreck is so stupid that they probably will...

perplexed
28th February 2017, 10:59
Delaying doesn't solve anything. The damage of people leaving has already been done and a few renewals won't change the pie HMRC are chasing after.

That isn't to say I don't believe it will be delayed - the idea of delaying this train wreck is so stupid that they probably will...

I was thinking more that those leaving have/will leave anyway.

Plenty of vacancies becoming available however would attract the inside IR35 brigade to replace them.

NORTHMAN
28th February 2017, 17:40
Is anyone able to decipher this for me please ?! .......
It's written in Scala, and uses the Play! as the MVC framework.

Interestingly, there are lots of public sector contracts available if you are any good (or not, seemingly) at Scala. All based in places with large HMRC offices. Make of that what you will.


also looks like if you have a clause in your contract that says you have to put right any work the client is not happy with in your own time and without additional pay, that also results in an outside verdict?
That's the way we read that on the team I'm part of today as well. I certainly have a clause to that effect in my contract.


You should already have this in your contract.
Agree 100%

I cannot see the tool being ready on time. By on time, I mean with enough time before April 6th to allow thousands of PS contracts to be put through it.

Also, the spreadsheet's filename is 1.0.0-FINAL.xlsx, but I'll be you a pound to a penny there is a 1.0.1-BETA.xlsx knocking around on someone's shared drive over at HMRC.

RedBadger
28th February 2017, 21:14
Also, the spreadsheet's filename is 1.0.0-FINAL.xlsx, but I'll be you a pound to a penny there is a 1.0.1-BETA.xlsx knocking around on someone's shared drive over at HMRC.

If you look through some of the other branches on github, like the integration version, you'll find a newer spreadsheet version 1.1.0-final.

Haven't done a comparison to see if anything has changed yet though.

Numpty101
28th February 2017, 22:21
Interesting article looks like everyone above has called it as it is.

hollyblue
28th February 2017, 22:31
Everyone is passing it!

jamesbrown
28th February 2017, 22:39
Thread merge (http://forums.contractoruk.com/accounting-legal/119790-hmrcs-new-ps-tool.html) on aisle 5? :D

JaredM
1st March 2017, 00:11
The source code may well be open source (as announced a while ago), but the decision spreadsheets that they have made available are unlikely to be the final ones I would bet.

Agreed. They have Scala and microservices so thats 2 'hot' technologies, shame they can't correctly define a CSV file https://github.com/hmrc/off-payroll-decision/blob/master/conf/tables/1.0.1-beta/matrix-of-matrices.csv

Quality
2nd March 2017, 08:26
DRUM ROLL ........

What time is the heralded launch of the tool - or will they announce a delay? :ladybags:

Kingman66
2nd March 2017, 08:40
DRUM ROLL ........

What time is the heralded launch of the tool - or will they announce a delay? :ladybags:

A delay and a pausing, and then blame all the chaos on the tool not being ready! :throw:

administrator
2nd March 2017, 09:06
A delay and a pausing, and then blame all the chaos on the tool not being ready! :throw:

At least some developers somewhere got some billable time of this mess :D

rob s
2nd March 2017, 09:29
At least some developers somewhere got some billable time of this mess :D

how long does it really take to code


10 PRINT "INSIDE"
20 GOTO 10

administrator
2nd March 2017, 10:03
how long does it really take to code


10 PRINT "INSIDE"
20 GOTO 10

<sucks teeth>I reckon that needs a team of at least five, skilled in many cutting edge technologies. To build, test, refuctor, test, refuctor, test, and deploy you've got to be looking at around six months of work... What? You want a guarantee it will be ready and working by March 2nd? Cash up front and I'll give you my word :rolleyes:

northernladuk
2nd March 2017, 10:07
<sucks teeth>I reckon that needs a team of at least five, skilled in many cutting edge technologies. To build, test, refuctor, test, refuctor, test, and deploy you've got to be looking at around six months of work... What? You want a guarantee it will be ready and working by March 2nd? Cash up front and I'll give you my word :rolleyes:

Five? skilled? No point posting it on CUK then.

MrStu
2nd March 2017, 11:36
No chance of it today in my experience. Branches still being committed to on Github within the last 20 minutes. No way that they can QA it in time, surely?

WordIsBond
2nd March 2017, 11:53
No way that they can QA it in time, surely?
QA?????

RonBW
2nd March 2017, 11:55
QA?????

- Does it compile?
- Yes, but...
- Ship it
- Yes, but...
- SHIP IT!

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder363/56777363.jpg

barrydidit
2nd March 2017, 11:56
QA?????

I'm assured it will have all the quality necessary. :eyes

bobspud
2nd March 2017, 12:32
By the way if you take a look at the code it looks like they built the logic into the code (no engine plugin) you can see in the decision branch how the answers are ejected...

rob s
2nd March 2017, 14:23
By the way if you take a look at the code it looks like they built the logic into the code (no engine plugin) you can see in the decision branch how the answers are ejected...

i wonder whether little bobby tables would be inside or outside...

teapot418
2nd March 2017, 16:47
Linky (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax)

MPwannadecentincome
2nd March 2017, 17:01
Linky (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax)

Interesting points on the RoS...


Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead?

This means someone who:

Is equally skilled, qualified, security cleared and able to perform the worker's duties
Won't be interviewed by the end client before they start
Isn't regularly engaged by the end client
Will do all of the worker's tasks for that period of time
Will be substituted because the worker is unwilling but not unable to do the work

teapot418
2nd March 2017, 17:06
Interesting points on the RoS...

That's interesting

WordIsBond
2nd March 2017, 17:13
They are certainly trying to limit the RoS with that one, aren't they? "Unwilling but not unable"?

So if you get a sub in because you want to go on holiday, that's cool, but if it's because you took ill, it's not?

Maybe I'm missing something.

Darren at Fox-Bartfield
2nd March 2017, 17:14
Ok....who's broken it already! :spank:

RonBW
2nd March 2017, 17:15
They are certainly trying to limit the RoS with that one, aren't they? "Unwilling but not unable"?

So if you get a sub in because you want to go on holiday, that's cool, but if it's because you took ill, it's not?

Maybe I'm missing something.

I think it's a wording point.

I'm unwilling to do the work because I'm going on holiday. It's not that I'm unable to do the work - I am able to do it, but I'm not willing to do it because I'm going away instead.

MPwannadecentincome
2nd March 2017, 17:15
I managed to get a "cannot determine" result with "need more info". Was at the question relating to rework - whose cost. As a PM I cannot think of a situation where I would have to rework something. I answered rework would be done in normal time and day rate.

teapot418
2nd March 2017, 17:27
Ok....who's broken it already! :spank:

Works for me?

fxc
2nd March 2017, 17:28
so unless Im getting this wrong, it appears as though if you have a good substitution clause then youre golden?

teapot418
2nd March 2017, 17:29
so unless Im getting this wrong, it appears as though if you have a good substitution clause then youre golden?

Yep.

anonymouse
2nd March 2017, 17:30
Only IE

RonBW
2nd March 2017, 17:30
Only IE

Works fine in Chrome for me :) And in Firefox as well.

MPwannadecentincome
2nd March 2017, 17:32
Only IE

worked fine for me on Chrome.

Darren at Fox-Bartfield
2nd March 2017, 17:38
Works for me?

Seems to work in Explorer but not Chrome, odd!

teapot418
2nd March 2017, 17:39
Seems to work in Explorer but not Chrome, odd!

What version?

bobspud
2nd March 2017, 17:41
so unless Im getting this wrong, it appears as though if you have a good substitution clause then youre golden?

but you need to read the question. Would your client actually take your mate instead without an interview. That is never going to happen and it was always disingenuous to say it would. Even a big firm will have to ask to move their minions out...

MrMarkyMark
2nd March 2017, 17:47
but you need to read the question. Would your client actually take your mate instead without an interview. That is never going to happen and it was always disingenuous to say it would. Even a big firm will have to ask to move their minions out...

The only instance in which they would is if the other contractor is already known to the client :).

bobspud
2nd March 2017, 18:13
The only instance in which they would is if the other contractor is already known to the client :).

yep but that is the edge case

MrMarkyMark
2nd March 2017, 18:19
yep but that is the edge case

Totally and the only one I could think of.

We all know that when any of the big consultancy muppets wish to switch someone out, they are always given some kind of "interview" by the client.

jamesbrown
2nd March 2017, 20:00
The only instance in which they would is if the other contractor is already known to the client :).

IIRC that was an exclusion, i.e. it can't be someone connected to the client, although I'd need to recheck...

daemon
2nd March 2017, 21:08
So noone can really hand on heart use the RoS as a get out clause?

The next one of real significance seems to be Quality of Work and who puts it right?

My contract says i have to at my own expense, which if i'm being honest is how it would be. If i made a catastrophic mistake with the database design the client wouldnt expect to have to pay for me to fix it.

northernladuk
2nd March 2017, 21:20
That clause should be in all compliant contracts but how many people have every had to do it? None that I know of. And be honest. You'd expect to put months of work in if you made a mistake. I doubt it.

I'm surprised that carries any weight TBH.

daemon
2nd March 2017, 21:24
That clause should be in all compliant contracts but how many people have every had to do it? None that I know of. And be honest. You'd expect to put months of work in if you made a mistake. I doubt it.

I'm surprised that carries any weight TBH.

I'm building a database, based on data gathering. If it was catastrophically wrong and not fit for purpose then yes, i would be expected to put it right.

It might not take me months, but yes, i'd have to make it fit for purpose and the client wouldnt expect to pay.

Semtex
2nd March 2017, 21:37
I'm building a database, based on data gathering. If it was catastrophically wrong and not fit for purpose then yes, i would be expected to put it right.

It might not take me months, but yes, i'd have to make it fit for purpose and the client wouldnt expect to pay.

I really don't see the point with this clause as unless it is a contractual deliverable what weight would this clause actually mean in the real world? Nada.

if your contract states deliverables then fine..

daemon
2nd March 2017, 21:43
I really don't see the point with this clause as unless it is a contractual deliverable what weight would this clause actually mean in the real world? Nada.

if your contract states deliverables then fine..

It doesnt state a deliverable, however my role has effectively a sole deliverable. If the client wasnt happy with what i had done / was doing, they'd expect me to fix it. I'm there for my experience and to get it right.

We're there as a project to deliver a new system. I'm designing, building and data gathering for the underlying DB.

Andy Hallett
2nd March 2017, 21:45
I suggest everyone opts out [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

daemon
2nd March 2017, 21:55
I suggest everyone opts out [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

The test is a moot point for me anyway - the client are taking the lazy option of deeming everyone in....

So overturning that for individuals is going to be an uphill battle.

Whorty
2nd March 2017, 22:04
That clause should be in all compliant contracts but how many people have every had to do it? None that I know of. And be honest. You'd expect to put months of work in if you made a mistake. I doubt it.

I'm surprised that carries any weight TBH.

Not necessarily true. We all work (I assume) a professional working day .... this is not 8 hours, but the hours required to do the work. I can work 6 hours or 14 or anywhere in between. If I have cocked up, or have to make amends, then I do this in my own time with no extra pay from the client. Don't we all work like this?

SueEllen
2nd March 2017, 22:13
but you need to read the question. Would your client actually take your mate instead without an interview. That is never going to happen and it was always disingenuous to say it would. Even a big firm will have to ask to move their minions out...

The other one that works is if you get lots of help from someone in delivering your work and you have to pay them. So my down fall in the past is people helping me as a favour and not billing me. :tantrum:

RonBW
2nd March 2017, 22:44
I suggest everyone opts out [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I thought everyone opted out? An agent told me that they did!

MrMarkyMark
3rd March 2017, 07:12
IIRC that was an exclusion, i.e. it can't be someone connected to the client, although I'd need to recheck...

Would be interested in the definition of "connected" :smile

Andy Hallett
3rd March 2017, 07:39
In reality the agency will complete the assessment and pass to the client and contractor for acceptance and review respectively. As the broker they'll collect both sides of the information.

Agents will need to be mindful of the GAAR when performing their function in this.

GB9
3rd March 2017, 08:27
In reality the agency will complete the assessment and pass to the client and contractor for acceptance and review respectively. As the broker they'll collect both sides of the information.

Agents will need to be mindful of the GAAR when performing their function in this.

So what happens if the contractor disagrees? I assume they just look elsewhere and the agent tries a different candidate?

On a point raised by others earlier, for interviewing, there is an accepted difference between an introduction and a formal interview. It would be unreasonable to expect a client to take anyone on site without a quick chat first. This wouldn't qualify as an interview.

psychocandy
3rd March 2017, 08:43
Interesting points on the RoS...

How many people are going to be able to answer this question though? Unless you've used a sub.

I'm betting a lot of people have a sub clause but have never used it. Or would never plan to.

How do you know client would accept someone else if you haven't specifically asked them? I had an off the record conversation a few weeks ago with client manager about this.

First he only had a vague idea that it was in the contract. I explained how it all worked and his answer was "hmm dunno, depends I suppose".

psychocandy
3rd March 2017, 08:46
Wheres the bit about correcting work in your own time?

All I got was this (for my last gig)


Which of these describes you best?
The worker
Has the worker already started this particular engagement for the end client?
Yes
How does the worker provide their services to the end client?
As a limited company
Is the worker or their business an office holder for the end client?
No
During this engagement has the worker's business arranged for someone else to do the work instead?
No - it's never happened
Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead?
Yes
Would the worker's business have to pay the person who did the work instead of them?
Yes

barrydidit
3rd March 2017, 08:54
How many people are going to be able to answer this question though? Unless you've used a sub.

I'm betting a lot of people have a sub clause but have never used it. Or would never plan to.

How do you know client would accept someone else if you haven't specifically asked them? I had an off the record conversation a few weeks ago with client manager about this.

First he only had a vague idea that it was in the contract. I explained how it all worked and his answer was "hmm dunno, depends I suppose".

It's not you who is filling this in though is it?

Qdos Contractor
3rd March 2017, 09:01
Wheres the bit about correcting work in your own time?

All I got was this (for my last gig)


Which of these describes you best?
The worker
Has the worker already started this particular engagement for the end client?
Yes
How does the worker provide their services to the end client?
As a limited company
Is the worker or their business an office holder for the end client?
No
During this engagement has the worker's business arranged for someone else to do the work instead?
No - it's never happened
Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead?
Yes
Would the worker's business have to pay the person who did the work instead of them?
Yes

You only get that far if you don't have substitution.

eek
3rd March 2017, 09:03
Wheres the bit about correcting work in your own time?

All I got was this (for my last gig)


Which of these describes you best?
The worker
Has the worker already started this particular engagement for the end client?
Yes
How does the worker provide their services to the end client?
As a limited company
Is the worker or their business an office holder for the end client?
No
During this engagement has the worker's business arranged for someone else to do the work instead?
No - it's never happened
Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead?
Yes
Would the worker's business have to pay the person who did the work instead of them?
Yes

did you answer

Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead? truthfully?

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

pscont
3rd March 2017, 09:42
Playing with it without the RoS clause I managed to get 2 out of 3 outside results. So it is not too bad.

fxc
3rd March 2017, 09:51
but you need to read the question. Would your client actually take your mate instead without an interview. That is never going to happen and it was always disingenuous to say it would. Even a big firm will have to ask to move their minions out...

I understand what you are saying, but suppose it never ends up being required during the contract, how would anyone go about proving the negative?

psychocandy
3rd March 2017, 09:57
Must admit - I've tried a few different answers and I cant seem to get an INSIDE result!

FrontEnder
3rd March 2017, 09:59
I've only tried it once and got an indeterminate result. I answered some questions how I think they would answer it though.

I think this result could potentially play into our hands here. Tell the client that if the tool cannot determine the result, the only option is a contract review by an expert, which you're happy to pay for.

Then send the contract to QDOS, get an outside answer and give their report to the client. It would be hard for a hiring manager to argue, surely?

jamesbrown
3rd March 2017, 10:07
Would be interested in the definition of "connected" :smile

Sorry, I went back and my recollection was only partially correct. Essentially, it cannot be someone that works (or has worked) regularly for the client, independently of the substitution. It's basically there to avoid some wholly fabricated circle-jerk of mates, who all work for the same client, subbing for each other.

Guesstimator
3rd March 2017, 10:17
I understand what you are saying, but suppose it never ends up being required during the contract, how would anyone go about proving the negative?

I guess it hinges on the following though:

Will the determining party use this tool? (nothing obliges them to)

and

What would their answer be to that question?

If you have influence over those things then that's cool.

jamesbrown
3rd March 2017, 10:25
You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

Agreed, it isn't really the case-law RoS as I recognise it. It's a completely unfettered RoS.

Having played around with the tool a little more, my impression, relative to the beta, is that it's still difficult to get an inside determination, but it's now relatively easy to get no determination. In particular, they're weighting control as a neutral factor when the client cannot determine "how" the work is done in principle. This is a tough one, as evidenced in Marlen and Primary Path (specialist expertise), but it will often lead to an indeterminate outcome on D&C from the tool and hence the need for a completely unfettered RoS to get an outside determination. My guess is that there will now be many undetermined results.

MrMarkyMark
3rd March 2017, 10:30
Sorry, I went back and my recollection was only partially correct. Essentially, it cannot be someone that works (or has worked) regularly for the client, independently of the substitution. It's basically there to avoid some wholly fabricated circle-jerk of mates, who all work for the same client, subbing for each other.

Interesting one still.
Has worked in the past regularly, what does it mean?

Generally clients are useless at dealing with keeping in contact with good, past, contractors.
I have bought some back for my current client a number of times.
It suited me as I knew they would get the particular project done and we would have a bit of a crack doing it.

Furthermore we could be possibly be described as a circle-jerk of mates :laugh

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 10:33
Interesting one still.
Has worked in the past regularly, what does it mean?

Generally clients are useless at dealing with keeping in contact with good, past, contractors.
I have bought some back for my current client a number of times.
It suited me as I knew they would get the particular project done and we would have a bit of a crack doing it.

Furthermore we could be possibly be described as a circle-jerk of mates :laugh

I suspect that in the eyes of hmrc a true business would shun repeat business!

sal
3rd March 2017, 10:35
did you answer

Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead? truthfully?

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

Some clued up PS clients will accept the "risk" of you sending someone to do your job "on paper". If the risk for failed projects is greater (as it will most likely be if they lose you because of IR35).

If someone tries to be cheeky and actually uses the clause they can always hold the sub at reception until the ID card/user accounts etc. are being prepared... which make take days... as a no work is performed they don't have to pay for that period... and then you come back from your holiday.

Or they accept the person, but find they are not a good fit, while still "Equally skilled and not interviewed by the client" for the team and send them home.

In both cases the answer to "Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead?" is Yes

It's a sham - yes, but as long as everyone is prepared to play it's part in it, it's a quick way out of this mess for everyone involved.

vwdan
3rd March 2017, 10:41
Equipment - Significant tools needed to do the work (Not including items already owned by the workers business).

That bit in quotes is a right scam - so the fact I use my own laptop and specialist software is immaterial unless I buy it during the engagement?

Still got Outside, answering honestly for my current gig, but I don't like some of those additional qualifications they've popped in.

I suppose one possible outcome from all this (Once it's all gone wrong, of course) is that people do actually start engaging contractors 'properly'. More flexibility, more project based pricing etc.

jamesbrown
3rd March 2017, 10:44
Interesting one still.
Has worked in the past regularly, what does it mean?

Generally clients are useless at dealing with keeping in contact with good, past, contractors.
I have bought some back for my current client a number of times.
It suited me as I knew they would get the particular project done and we would have a bit of a crack doing it.

Furthermore we could be possibly be described as a circle-jerk of mates :laugh

Yeah, you need to look at the tool for the precise wording, but I think they're trying to avoid the situation I described where the sub is well-known to the client. That being said, I don't think their view of a sufficiently unfettered RoS is consistent with case law.

psychocandy
3rd March 2017, 10:46
did you answer

Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead? truthfully?

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

To be honest I dont they would want to interview them. They'd be very wary and want to know exactly who this person was and what skills they had and how they were up to speed etc. though.

vwdan
3rd March 2017, 10:49
Some clued up PS clients will accept the "risk" of you sending someone to do your job "on paper".

I do so hope that all this effort just winds up in a situation where clients are as invested in avoiding IR35 as we are. It'd be pretty ******* hilarious if the end result is loads more contractors in a stronger outside position.

RoS is a load of crap, anyway. If I hire a builder because I trust his work, I'm probably not going to be super happy if he says "I'm off on holiday, my brothers mate is coming round to fill in."

eek
3rd March 2017, 10:58
I do so hope that all this effort just winds up in a situation where clients are as invested in avoiding IR35 as we are. It'd be pretty ******* hilarious if the end result is loads more contractors in a stronger outside position.

RoS is a load of crap, anyway. If I hire a builder because I trust his work, I'm probably not going to be super happy if he says "I'm off on holiday, my brothers mate is coming round to fill in."

It depends what's he's coming in to do. If he's in to do x because he's better at x that's not a problem....

philo
3rd March 2017, 10:59
That bit in quotes is a right scam - so the fact I use my own laptop and specialist software is immaterial unless I buy it during the engagement?

Still got Outside, answering honestly for my current gig, but I don't like some of those additional qualifications they've popped in.

I suppose one possible outcome from all this (Once it's all gone wrong, of course) is that people do actually start engaging contractors 'properly'. More flexibility, more project based pricing etc.

Yea I dont get this one about the equipment. at first thought that sorts it as you can't charge it back to the company but seems a bit mad if you had to buy a new laptop or whatever for each contract - especially if running multiple contracts at once or 3 month contracts at different PSOs.

Or does a new USB stick count as new equipment so you store all work relating to that contract on a different drive? Is it as simple as that - couldnt really argue with it could you?

RonBW
3rd March 2017, 11:00
That bit in quotes is a right scam - so the fact I use my own laptop and specialist software is immaterial unless I buy it during the engagement?

A couple of weeks before my contract started, my laptop died. I didn't need one, I was between gigs and had an old one that still worked plus a desktop. Client explained that it would be much simpler if I used my own laptop when I went to their site, so I needed to go out and buy one specifically for the contract.

I wouldn't normally, but just that little chance happening means that I can honestly say that I had to get specialist equipment for this role - which pushes me even further outside IR35.

vwdan
3rd March 2017, 11:04
It depends what's he's coming in to do. If he's in to do x because he's better at x that's not a problem....

But that's not substitution, is it - there's already another question about subcontracting out.

eek
3rd March 2017, 11:10
But that's not substitution, is it - there's already another question about subcontracting out.

True, but its a better way of doing it then just bringing someone because you want a holiday... Firstly you are giving the end client a valid reason for that guy coming in without being interviewed (he's better at x than I am) and secondly it gives the customer the perception of a better delivery...

Oh and from memory I don't remember seeing the subcontracting question before the substitution one when you answer no to the has this person started question....

sal
3rd March 2017, 11:21
I do so hope that all this effort just winds up in a situation where clients are as invested in avoiding IR35 as we are. It'd be pretty ******* hilarious if the end result is loads more contractors in a stronger outside position.

RoS is a load of crap, anyway. If I hire a builder because I trust his work, I'm probably not going to be super happy if he says "I'm off on holiday, my brothers mate is coming round to fill in."

PSB now do have vested interest in avoiding IR35 as it will cost them money, by either paying higher rates or getting their projects wrecked.

Agencies also have vested interest in retaining PSBs that are happy to do outside IR35 determination.

Agree that RoS is load of crap and a sham, but if it's the silver bullet, it's just one item of the working practices that you have to educate the clientCo about, not a complex web of multiple other variables.

vwdan
3rd March 2017, 11:42
True, but its a better way of doing it then just bringing someone because you want a holiday... Firstly you are giving the end client a valid reason for that guy coming in without being interviewed (he's better at x than I am) and secondly it gives the customer the perception of a better delivery...


Interesting point. I'll gladly lose a day every now and again to drag a colleague in for a hand.

Oh and from memory I don't remember seeing the subcontracting question before the substitution one when you answer no to the has this person started question....[/QUOTE]

Oh, I always did it as started.

chineseJohn
3rd March 2017, 12:01
As of 12:00 the tool is broken..... :bang:

Bad CSRF token found in query String

rl4engc
3rd March 2017, 12:02
Not been involved in all this as I'm Private Sector, but assuming Hector tries to come after us at some point too, doesn't it just centre around Right of Substitution? My contract allows this.

i.e.

I'm not an office holder at the end client, if I can't do a days work, I can substitude MyMateDave Ltd to do it on my behalf. MyMateDave invoices MyLtdCo and I have to pay his company. Client would have to be OK with this.

But in reality, MyMateDave is busy on another contract, so this situation would never arise. (I'm not required to be able to provide a substitution.

Am I missing something? What's all the fuss about, is this designed to root out lifers in the Public Sector that hold office and have had a seat on the gravy train done so many years?

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 12:04
That bit in quotes is a right scam - so the fact I use my own laptop and specialist software is immaterial unless I buy it during the engagement?

Still got Outside, answering honestly for my current gig, but I don't like some of those additional qualifications they've popped in.

I suppose one possible outcome from all this (Once it's all gone wrong, of course) is that people do actually start engaging contractors 'properly'. More flexibility, more project based pricing etc.

Totally agree - its like a builder replacing all his tools for each and every job. The test should be do you supply your own kit for the role. On my current role I've been allocated one of their laptops but I always take mine into the office also and use it quite often. Obviously their machine is used most, but that's down to their network restrictions etc.

Tinkerbell3
3rd March 2017, 12:05
HMRC want as many people 'caught' as possible! If the tool makes a large number of 'outside' determinations - is there a risk that HMRC will still try to investigate, etc. just to get what they want? Clients have a tendency to be very risk averse - so how much faith will they place on the tool's output?

As an ex-auditor, I'm also not quite sure how I feel about the lack of audit trails tracking the use of the tool! Doesn't sound quite right to me! Something of this importance should have a more definitive audit trail and accountability, surely....

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 12:07
Totally agree - its like a builder replacing all his tools for each and every job. The test should be do you supply your own kit for the role. On my current role I've been allocated one of their laptops but I always take mine into the office also and use it quite often. Obviously their machine is used most, but that's down to their network restrictions etc.

I can't see how that situation can pass a use your own tools. You bring them in by choice and make a conscious effort to use them to 'look' like you are. Bottom line is client gives you kit that does what you need. If you tick that you use your own kit it's a bit woolly to say the least.

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 12:10
The substitution clause is a total sham. No company is going to allow some random body onto site without them having had certain background checks carried out and passed. So on that basis the client has the right to knock back the substitute.

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 12:18
I can't see how that situation can pass a use your own tools. You bring them in by choice and make a conscious effort to use them to 'look' like you are. Bottom line is client gives you kit that does what you need. If you tick that you use your own kit it's a bit woolly to say the least.

Actually after an Office 'upgrade' using my kit was the only option for a few weeks because of their bodged build which was rolled out to all their laptops.

I often do my dev work on my machine because its faster but day to day stuff and anything requiring the network is carried out using theirs. Also when using the net to find solutions to problems, their over zealous blocking of some sites means it's easier to tether my laptop to the company phone and use that. Each day I'm in the office, both machines are out and powered up.

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 12:24
Actually after an Office 'upgrade' using my kit was the only option for a few weeks because of their bodged build which was rolled out to all their laptops.

I often do my dev work on my machine because its faster but day to day stuff and anything requiring the network is carried out using theirs. Also when using the net to find solutions to problems, their over zealous blocking of some sites means it's easier to tether my laptop to the company phone and use that. Each day I'm in the office, both machines are out and powered up.

I get that.. but I'm still not sure that's not good enough to cover it. The tools they offer may not be as good but they do what you need and you've been given them. You use the kit because it's a bit better at some stuff. Not sure that's going to fulfill what the question is after.

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 12:30
I get that.. but I'm still not sure that's not good enough to cover it. The tools they offer may not be as good but they do what you need and you've been given them. You use the kit because it's a bit better at some stuff. Not sure that's going to fulfill what the question is after.

I get what you are saying, but the question should be more about your ability to supply your own tools. There are plenty of places where the client won't allow you to use your own equipment for security reasons etc. It's somewhat unfair to use the clients preference as to the source of the equipment as a determining factor for the contract.

FWIW they don't provide phones. So my company registered mobile is used all the time.

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 12:30
I get what you are saying, but the question should be more about your ability to supply your own tools. There are plenty of places where the client won't allow you to use your own equipment for security reasons etc. It's somewhat unfair to use the clients preference as to the source of the equipment as a determining factor for the contract.

Many permies bring their own kit on site as well.....

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 12:34
Many permies bring their own kit on site as well.....

Sorry when I say my kit I mean my employers kit! So I go in with a laptop from my employer and one from theirs

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 12:37
The equipment question should be about whether you are >required< to use your company's equipment, not whether you are permitted to. Lots of employees use their own equipment. But if you have to use your own rather than theirs, it's a strong indicator.

And it should not ask whether your company owned the equipment previously. Totally irrelevant.

BoredBloke
3rd March 2017, 12:45
The equipment question should be about whether you are >required< to use your company's equipment, not whether you are permitted to. Lots of employees use their own equipment. But if you have to use your own rather than theirs, it's a strong indicator.

And it should not ask whether your company owned the equipment previously. Totally irrelevant.

I obviously don't agree. As I said, if the client has security reasons which mean you can't use your kit on their network then It's somewhat unfair to use that as a determining factor on the contract. There should be a question asking if you are able to supply the kit required to do the contract. The fact that they insist on theirs being used is their choice for whatever reasons they might have.

I'm pretty sure, in the times of budget cuts, if the PSB could allow all their contractors to supply their own kit they would happily do so. The fact that they don't shows that this question is flawed.

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 12:51
And I'm with WiB. Anything else is so open to interpretation is worthless.

MPwannadecentincome
3rd March 2017, 12:59
useful info from QDOS in the other thread.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/public-sector-ir35/119893-its-fine-roll-out-private-sector-2.html#post2381488

Admin - need a thread merge I think.

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 13:18
I obviously don't agree. As I said, if the client has security reasons which mean you can't use your kit on their network then It's somewhat unfair to use that as a determining factor on the contract. There should be a question asking if you are able to supply the kit required to do the contract. The fact that they insist on theirs being used is their choice for whatever reasons they might have.

If you are required to use your own, that pretty much proves you are not an employee. So the question should definitely ask that.

If you are permitted to use your own, that should only be a question if employees aren't permitted to. Otherwise, it doesn't distinguish at all between you and employees.

The point of the tool is to find out if you are different from an employee or not. So only questions that distinguish you from employees, or show that you are like one, are useful.

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 13:22
useful info from QDOS in the other thread.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/public-sector-ir35/119893-its-fine-roll-out-private-sector-2.html#post2381488

Admin - need a thread merge I think.
The obvious answer is to start a third thread. :D

I've got a list of very specific flaws in the tool, should I start it as a separate thread or bury it 80 comments down in one of the existing threads?

MrMarkyMark
3rd March 2017, 13:22
Many permies bring their own kit on site as well.....


Exactly, your Mrs always like to supply her own "gear" :eyes

Yorkie62
3rd March 2017, 17:10
And I'm with WiB. Anything else is so open to interpretation is worthless.

Not if you are engaged on a List-X site. Then for reasons of national security I would not be permitted to use my own gear (laptop), nor can I remove any such data from the site. To fulfil the contract I have no option but to work on the clients site. Unless of course I am allowed to turn my business premises into a List-X site with all the appropriate network and physical security. I think the local council might have something to say about the physical security measures.:ohwell

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 17:15
Not if you are engaged on a List-X site. Then for reasons of national security I would not be permitted to use my own gear (laptop), nor can I remove any such data from the site. To fulfil the contract I have no option but to work on the clients site. Unless of course I am allowed to turn my business premises into a List-X site with all the appropriate network and physical security. I think the local council might have something to say about the physical security measures.:ohwell
But all that just means that it should be irrelevant for someone on such a contract.

No one is suggesting that using client equipment should put you inside. Obviously, there are many cases where it shouldn't. The question is what should put you outside.

Whorty
3rd March 2017, 17:40
The equipment question should be about whether you are >required< to use your company's equipment, not whether you are permitted to. Lots of employees use their own equipment. But if you have to use your own rather than theirs, it's a strong indicator.

And it should not ask whether your company owned the equipment previously. Totally irrelevant.

We have larger consultancy companies do work and some of their staff are also provided end client laptops. This is because they connect to sensitive areas of the network and internal IT don't want none end-client kit accessing these areas. So, in these instances, I am working exactly the same as a consultancy with 6000 staff.

And this is the crux of the matter. As a small consultancy I'm providing the same consultancy as I did when I worked for a big 4, yet my 500 per day should be taxed as PAYE yet the 2000 per day that Big4 received can be taxed as corporate tax as they paid me a salary which was through PAYE.

If I'm deemed employee doing what I'm doing today as an independent then I should have been too as a consultant ... that is, Big4 should be paying NICs etc on the 2000 per day, not on the meagre salary they gave me.

Whorty
3rd March 2017, 17:43
The point of the tool is to find out if you are different from an employee or not. So only questions that distinguish you from employees, or show that you are like one, are useful.

Questions like ... do you get pension, holiday pay, company phone, company credit card etc .... if only it was that simple

RonBW
3rd March 2017, 17:47
Questions like ... do you get pension, holiday pay, company phone, company credit card etc .... if only it was that simple

Q1) Worker: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Q2) Client: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Anything more complicated than that is overkill

vwdan
3rd March 2017, 17:53
We have larger consultancy companies do work and some of their staff are also provided end client laptops. This is because they connect to sensitive areas of the network and internal IT don't want none end-client kit accessing these areas. So, in these instances, I am working exactly the same as a consultancy with 6000 staff.

And this is the crux of the matter. As a small consultancy I'm providing the same consultancy as I did when I worked for a big 4, yet my 500 per day should be taxed as PAYE yet the 2000 per day that Big4 received can be taxed as corporate tax as they paid me a salary which was through PAYE.

If I'm deemed employee doing what I'm doing today as an independent then I should have been too as a consultant ... that is, Big4 should be paying NICs etc on the 2000 per day, not on the meagre salary they gave me.

This is my biggest beef - I work pretty much the same whether I'm a contractor or a at a consultancy. The PAYE thing I could probably handle, but the expenses thing isn't sustainable.

gables
3rd March 2017, 18:19
Q1) Worker: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Q2) Client: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Anything more complicated than that is overkill

Where I've just finished, the guidance (on the intranet) for hiring managers was that contractors were not employees and were not to be treated as such, it was explicit in this.

Whorty's posts sum it up for me, but both scenarios don't work for HMRC though

b r
3rd March 2017, 18:42
If I'm deemed employee doing what I'm doing today as an independent then I should have been too as a consultant ... that is, Big4 should be paying NICs etc on the 2000 per day, not on the meagre salary they gave me.

Or at least on the percentage that goes (or the part of the charge/hours they get from each contract) to the directors/partners who take a dividend.

Semtex
3rd March 2017, 18:53
director of PS X organisation's head is on the block for fines and Tax/NI if negligence plays a part of any decision if the ESS tool has not been used as it should then financial liability is on his head.

Its all about risk and Cover your arse.

don't expect a client to complete this anyway but conservatively

RonBW
3rd March 2017, 20:37
director of PS X organisation's head is on the block for fines and Tax/NI if negligence plays a part of any decision if the ESS tool has not been used as it should then financial liability is on his head.

When did liability shift from the payer to the end client?

eek
3rd March 2017, 20:40
When did liability shift from the payer to the end client?

It shifts to the end client if the end client doesn't provide a decision in 31 days or is found to have not completed the form accurately.

WordIsBond
4th March 2017, 11:52
And this is the crux of the matter. As a small consultancy I'm providing the same consultancy as I did when I worked for a big 4, yet my 500 per day should be taxed as PAYE yet the 2000 per day that Big4 received can be taxed as corporate tax as they paid me a salary which was through PAYE.

If I'm deemed employee doing what I'm doing today as an independent then I should have been too as a consultant ... that is, Big4 should be paying NICs etc on the 2000 per day, not on the meagre salary they gave me.
It's actually not "the crux of the matter."

The crux of the matter is that the online tool is supposed to provided good guidance as to how to implement the law.

The law itself, Gordon Brown's ugly stepchild and everything it has bred since then, is a blot on the British tax system and detrimental to the flexible workforce which is so vital to the British economy. I've argued elsewhere that the law should be abolished. But since we have a stupid government that thinks expanding Brown's horrible idea is the wave of the future, the law isn't being abolished. That's life, it's reality.

The crux of the matter as regards the online tool is that it COULD help the matter by reducing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, if it actually reflected the law properly. Since it doesn't, it makes things even worse. And the most likely outcome is that Public Sector Bodies pay the price. That's not horrible, because it could result in a more sane approach in government to this monstrosity of a law.


Q1) Worker: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Q2) Client: Do you intend this engagement to be treated like one of employment?

Anything more complicated than that is overkill
Won't work. See my rant to Whorty above. But if you want to change the law, I'll be right there with you.

Before that would work, though, you'd have to somewhat equalise taxation between employment taxes and taxation on corporate profits. Otherwise, every employee in the country would quickly become a PSC, which is a nonsense.

eek
4th March 2017, 12:25
Before that would work, though, you'd have to somewhat equalise taxation between employment taxes and taxation on corporate profits. Otherwise, every employee in the country would quickly become a PSC, which is a nonsense.

I suspect the use of IR35 was to use something that already existed as it was less work / risk /effort than other methods. If you look at how the PSC IR35 works its really the bastard child of IR35 and CIS designed to work using existing case law to avoid potential court cases because internal ministerial pressure just wasn't working..

SueEllen
4th March 2017, 12:26
did you answer

Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead? truthfully?

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

What do they mean by interview?

Does it mean a chat?

malvolio
4th March 2017, 12:44
What do they mean by interview?

Does it mean a chat?
It is not unreasonable for the client to assure themselves that the proposed subbie is capable of doing the work to the same standard. They can do that by trusting PwC to send in someone capable ( :tongue ) or they have a full interview, or anything in between. Exactly how they assure themselves is up to them. Meaning you can't make it a binary question...

eek
4th March 2017, 13:01
What do they mean by interview?

Does it mean a chat?

To me means anything which allows the end client to say no... That could be a chat, it could be an interview. The way I read the question is can I send someone in to do my work without the client complaining about it....

SueEllen
4th March 2017, 16:11
To me means anything which allows the end client to say no... That could be a chat, it could be an interview. The way I read the question is can I send someone in to do my work without the client complaining about it....

The problem with that is that the person could do a day or two days work and the client could say we tried them out and they were unsuitable. Now is trying them out a form of "interview"? Well there are posts that randomly appear here with people saying the client wants their first day or so to be an interview.

If they are working on your site or at home, and the client is aware that this person is doing all or part of the work for you, then they are less likely to say "No" if you aren't breaching NDAs and security. However they can still say "No" if they want to as they are paying for the service.

Oh and when I worked for consultancies you were interviewed for every project you were put on, so in short the question is not based on reality.

jamesbrown
4th March 2017, 16:29
in short the question is not based on reality.

Or on case law.

koalah
5th March 2017, 16:04
Did the tool on Thursday and all was okay for being outside, even saying no to substitutes. Saved the results. Now just tried to do it again so that I can print it as end client and agency have asked to see my answers so they can proceed with extending contract and all I'm getting from answering the first question (Are you a worker?) is Bad CSRF token found in query String
Giving that for all three, so I guess the beta is broken already.

eek
5th March 2017, 16:35
Did the tool on Thursday and all was okay for being outside, even saying no to substitutes. Saved the results. Now just tried to do it again so that I can print it as end client and agency have asked to see my answers so they can proceed with extending contract and all I'm getting from answering the first question (Are you a worker?) is Bad CSRF token found in query String
Giving that for all three, so I guess the beta is broken already.

Clear your browser cache and start again....

MrMarkyMark
5th March 2017, 16:39
Clear your browser cache and start again....

One wonders how many calls HMRC have had :laugh

koalah
5th March 2017, 18:29
I was using it on a totally different computer and browser to when I've done it before, so not sure why that's an issue. Clearly it's not been QA'd properly!
Can't get it working on Chrome even after clearing the browser cache, but it does work on Edge and Safari.

rocktronAMP
6th March 2017, 15:14
It's written in Scala, and uses the Play! as the MVC framework.

Interestingly, there are lots of public sector contracts available if you are any good (or not, seemingly) at Scala. All based in places with large HMRC offices. Make of that what you will.


That's the way we read that on the team I'm part of today as well. I certainly have a clause to that effect in my contract.


Agree 100%

I cannot see the tool being ready on time. By on time, I mean with enough time before April 6th to allow thousands of PS contracts to be put through it.

Also, the spreadsheet's filename is 1.0.0-FINAL.xlsx, but I'll be you a pound to a penny there is a 1.0.1-BETA.xlsx knocking around on someone's shared drive over at HMRC.

Yes

Assuming you have SBT and Scala all set up on your workstation, and you are developer, then you should be able to execute at the command line,



> sbt clean


and then execute




> sbt build

> sbt run


There you go.

rocktronAMP
6th March 2017, 15:23
And I'm with WiB. Anything else is so open to interpretation is worthless.

So that blows for the contractor consultancies around Government Digital Services work around (e.g Equal Experts, kainos, engine group ...). Where IT contractors brought their own kit laptops mini transputers BYOD into the UK Home Office, Cabinet Office, Business International, etc ... at least when I was around 2013 and 2014.

bobspud
6th March 2017, 18:04
So that blows for the contractor consultancies around Government Digital Services work around (e.g Equal Experts, kainos, engine group ...). Where IT contractors brought their own kit laptops mini transputers BYOD into the UK Home Office, Cabinet Office, Business International, etc ... at least when I was around 2013 and 2014.

Why are you saying that? I'd say those contracts were fairly square with regards to IR35...

NORTHMAN
6th March 2017, 19:55
Currently sitting on tenterhooks waiting for the end client to run the tool and tell us the result. Should be interesting.

Sausage Surprise
7th March 2017, 08:30
Currently sitting on tenterhooks waiting for the end client to run the tool and tell us the result. Should be interesting.
DWP Longbenton by any chance...

RonBW
7th March 2017, 09:44
Currently sitting on tenterhooks waiting for the end client to run the tool and tell us the result. Should be interesting.

Rather than sitting on tenterhooks, why not sit with the client and advise them?

fidot
8th March 2017, 10:04
or is found to have not completed the form accurately.

... where accurately means "leading to an IR35 caught status" :wink