PDA

View Full Version : It's Not Fine -- Specific Flaws With the New IR35 Tool



WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 14:10
I know there are other threads running on the new tool, sorry for the duplication. This one is not intended for general discussion, but to just list specific problems that HMRC really should fix. If you add to what I've said in the comments, I'll add it to the list, if in my infinite and undying wisdom I think what you say makes sense. Or, if you think what I've said here is wrong I can modify it.

The idea is to have one list that those with an "in" at HMRC can point to and say, "You really should fix that."

I'll break it up into six areas:
Mutuality of Obligation

Case law is clear that if there is no MoO it is not employment or disguised employment. The tool has NO questions on this at all that I've found. Glaring hole, so glaring that I wonder if it is intentional, since many contractors would beat an IR35 case on this point alone -- it's one of the pillars they HAVE to have to prove you are a disguised employee. Why did they not ask questions about this? Fail.

Right of Substitution

First, the tool makes RoS a binary choice between completely unfettered or no RoS at all. A completely unfettered RoS is a silver bullet, and the tool recognises this, but a partially fettered RoS is still a strong indicator of a contract for services and should have significant weighting.

Second, the tool defines RoS so narrowly that clients are unlikely to ever say it exists. The tool implies that there is no RoS if the client can verify a substitute's capabilities, but case law would probably not support that.

Supervision, Direction, Control

The tool seriously underweights this. If there is no SDC, there is no employment, no contract for service. But it is possible to get an "inside IR35" determination even when there is no SDC. I did it with the following answers:

No to substitution and helper.

No, the end client cannot move the worker to a new task without a new contract.
The end client can't decide how the work is to be done because it's a highly skilled role.
The worker decides their own schedule, and where they work.
The worker doesn't buy anything, is paid hourly, is paid for putting things right, receives no benefits, is not a line manager, and does not interact with the client's clients.

With that set of answers, there is clearly no SDC at all, but the tool says inside IR35. That's wrong. Ironically they made SDC solely determinative for travel expenses last year, but now won't make its absence determinative for IR35.

It's also silly. Change the answer to "the worker decides how the work is done" and you go from inside to outside. That one question flips it. But both are true in this case -- one set of workers decide because they are allowed to, the other set decide because they are smarter than their clients, and the smart guys end up inside while the dumb ones end up outside. Took a Public Sector Body to dream this up, I guess.

Those are the big three areas in case law, MoO, RoS, and SDC. The absence of MoO or SDC, or the presence of RoS, should automatically rule out IR35. But there are other areas that come into play, and the tool does make an attempt to reflect some of this.

Financial Risk

I've not tested this section much, but it mostly seems pretty good.

The first question's exclusion of equipment your company already owns is deeply flawed. If YourCo has to provide equipment, it has to provide it. Prior ownership is irrelevant to the client and irrelevant to the contractual relationship and working practices. Is there ANY justification for this prior ownership thing in case law, or did someone just pull it out of his backside?

The "other expenses" option on this question should list "insurance," since many contracts require it, but clients may not think of it when using the tool.

Part and Parcel

They are asking some good questions here (line management, benefits, contact with clients), but I've not done any testing to see how the weightings come into play or whether this stuff can move you inside, outside, or to undetermined. If anyone has done any testing on this, feel free to chime in.

Business Entities

Remember back when you could prove you were outside by passing the old BETs? They were worthless for most people because it was based on the kind of business most contractors don't run. But there were some things in there that were compelling evidence, if they applied to you, that you were running a business and not a disguised employee. It included things like business premises, employing other fee earners who are paid via PAYE, lost money through bad debts, etc. Stuff that proves you really are running a business.

This kind of stuff does show up in case law. And HMRC used to tell us it proved someone was outside. Unless they were just blowing smoke and want to admit their enforcement was all wrong in the past, they should have a section now that does the same thing. It's not stuff that should prove someone is inside, but it is stuff that should prove someone is running a real business and should be outside.

Feedback on what I've said or additional problems with the tool welcomed, as I said, I'll modify this list if something needs changed or added.

eek
3rd March 2017, 14:30
Yes the killer question for SDC is this one

Once the worker starts the engagement, can the end client decide how the work is done?

1) The worker decides how the work needs to be done without any input from the end client =outside
4) The end client can't decide how the work needs to be done because it's a highly skilled role = at best undetermined...

And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...

Guesstimator
3rd March 2017, 14:41
Yes the killer question for SDC is this one

Once the worker starts the engagement, can the end client decide how the work is done?

1) The worker decides how the work needs to be done without any input from the end client =outside
4) The end client can't decide how the work needs to be done because it's a highly skilled role = at best undetermined...

And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...

I concur...and tbh, when you look at the actual question ("specific employee, policies, process or guidelines" or something) I'd be amazed if any end client would pick 1 or 4 anyway.

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 14:47
I concur...and tbh, when you look at the actual question ("specific employee, policies, process or guidelines" or something) I'd be amazed if any end client would pick 1 or 4 anyway.
My clients would pick #4. That's the whole reason they engage me.

eek
3rd March 2017, 14:48
I concur...and tbh, when you look at the actual question ("specific employee, policies, process or guidelines" or something) I'd be amazed if any end client would pick 1 or 4 anyway.

You clearly work in a different field to me as those would be the answers I would expect any client of mine to pick (heck they are bringing me in as the subject matter expert / specialist to configure and customise a particular product for them )... Hence my concern that these 2 very similar answers have different results (especially as answer 4 is merely the client being more honest than answer 1).


My clients would pick #4. That's the whole reason they engage me.

Likewise - which is why the question is so annoying...

Guesstimator
3rd March 2017, 14:54
My clients would pick #4. That's the whole reason they engage me.

I'm the same.

However the problem is end client HR.

IMO they'll read "follows employee procedure" etc and just say "in that case, we do determine how they work", whether that's true or not.

The mentality will be "We've ticked that they are expected to follow our procedures. Whether they do or don't isn't what we care about, we've covered ourselves"

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 14:54
And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...
Seems like I remember reading something about some case that said things are different if someone is an expert. But I don't think the intent was to make having expertise turn you into an employee and not having it turn you into a business. That's just daft. In the real world it is the other way around, the experts go independent so they can sell their expertise widely.

Other than that, from a simple flow chart perspective the question breaks down because you have options (answers 1 and 4) which aren't mutually exclusive and which result in different outcomes. So if both 1 and 4 are true, which they could be, the outcome of the test is arbitrarily determined by which true choice the person makes. HMRC at its finest, I guess.

Guesstimator
3rd March 2017, 14:57
You clearly work in a different field to me as those would be the answers I would expect any client of mine to pick (heck they are bringing me in as the subject matter expert / specialist to configure and customise a particular product for them )... Hence my concern that these 2 very similar answers have different results (especially as answer 4 is merely the client being more honest than answer 1).




Possibly not so different a field in that case.

My immediate internal contacts would recognise 1 and 4...I fear HR (or whoever is tasked with completing the tool) won't give a toss/will simply default to arse-covering.

Fred Bloggs
3rd March 2017, 15:01
Thanks very interesting. It seems the whole set up will be reverse engineered in no time at all. Everyone will be outside! How dumb is that?

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 15:01
I'm the same.

However the problem is end client HR.

IMO they'll read "follows employee procedure" etc and just say "in that case, we do determine how they work", whether that's true or not.

The mentality will be "We've ticked that they are expected to follow our procedures. Whether they do or don't isn't what we care about, we've covered ourselves"
That's why this tool as currently constructed is deadly in the public sector but is actually probably not bad for those in the private sector right now. We can use it to show we are outside and, if we really are in business for ourselves, we can easily choose and defend answers that keep us outside.

If they roll out these stupid PS rules into the private sector, it will be trouble.

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 15:06
You clearly work in a different field to me as those would be the answers I would expect any client of mine to pick (heck they are bringing me in as the subject matter expert / specialist to configure and customise a particular product for them )... Hence my concern that these 2 very similar answers have different results (especially as answer 4 is merely the client being more honest than answer 1).



Likewise - which is why the question is so annoying...

I think there is context missing here. You three might be like that but what about your average coder or PM. You guys are slightly different to the norm. The vast majority are going to have problems with those questions.

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 15:16
You guys are slightly different to the norm.
One of the nicest things anyone has said about me all day.

You're right, of course. Many will end up with "The worker and other people employed by the end client agree how the work needs to be done." I haven't tested to see how that impacts things. I'm guessing it will evaluate out to "partial control" for most people.

Most people don't have a completely unfettered right of substitution and are not completely free of SDC. That's why the absence of questions about MoO is particularly egregious. I'm surprised people have ignored that, it's the biggest flaw in the tool by far, IMO, and weights things very strongly towards an inside ruling for a lot of people who should be outside based on absence of MoO.

Guesstimator
3rd March 2017, 15:20
That's why this tool as currently constructed is deadly in the public sector but is actually probably not bad for those in the private sector right now. We can use it to show we are outside and, if we really are in business for ourselves, we can easily choose and defend answers that keep us outside.

If they roll out these stupid PS rules into the private sector, it will be trouble.


I think there is context missing here. You three might be like that but what about your average coder or PM. You guys are slightly different to the norm. The vast majority are going to have problems with those questions.

I'm a natural born pessimist but, as I say, I think everyone will have problems with that question simply due to the intransigence (I'm being kind) of your average HR person.

It's vague enough that something like following a "process" on where to save a file on a client network would be caught. Prior to even getting to actual working practices, HR will torpedo any avenue that there might be come back on them. They're true artists at it.

As has been said by you lot already numerous times, this is a process of educating the end client...I'm just not hopeful of that when it comes to HR, be it public or private sector.

Edit: you're completely correct on MoO too, I agree. It's been avoided very blatently.

RonBW
3rd March 2017, 16:01
One of the intentions (I thought) was that the tool could / would be used for clients to use in advance of advertising the role, so that they clearly know whether it is inside or outside IR35.

The tool still requires the person completing the form (end client) to choose whether the worker will be operating via another party, a limited company, self-employed or partnership - which they can't possibly know until they have advertised the role, had applicants to the agency, and accepted candidates at the very earliest.

Choosing "self employed" will give a different answer to choosing "limited", even taking the path of least resistance to get to an outside determination, so the tool cannot be used effectively for future engagements.

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 16:05
One of the nicest things anyone has said about me all day.

I know. I'm such a failure. Won't happen again sorry :D

But I just thought it was worth pointing out you too aren't run of the mill like the rest us.


You're right, of course .

Thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me in... Oh.. Ever?

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 16:08
Thats the nicest thing anyone has said to me in... Oh.. Ever?
Best print and frame it.

MrMarkyMark
3rd March 2017, 16:11
Yes the killer question for SDC is this one

Once the worker starts the engagement, can the end client decide how the work is done?

1) The worker decides how the work needs to be done without any input from the end client =outside
4) The end client can't decide how the work needs to be done because it's a highly skilled role = at best undetermined...

And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...

I gave that answer and still come up outside :confused:

Both quite often apply to me though..?

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 16:19
Best print and frame it.

Pff. I've just seen your FTFY in the other thread. I ain't talking to you any more :cry2:

eek
3rd March 2017, 16:21
I gave that answer and still come up outside :confused:

Both quite often apply to me though..?

That depends on how many times you've played with the tool...

I got to the point where with all subsequent answers being equal in at least 3 different scenarios answering 1 gave me an outside answer and 4 gave me undetermined....

northernladuk
3rd March 2017, 16:23
That depends on how many times you've played with the tool...
.

<snigger>

WordIsBond
3rd March 2017, 16:38
I gave that answer and still come up outside :confused:

Both quite often apply to me though..?
You probably come up outside because of other answers.

My test was to run a scenario twice that was clearly inside on all non-SDC factors, and answer all SDC questions except that one clearly outside. The only difference between the two scenarios was on one I gave answer #1, and it came up outside, and on the other I gave answer #4, and it came up inside.

Here's what I think is happening, now that I think about it more. I think that answer #1 with all the right answers on other SDC questions gives you a clear pass on SDC, so you end up outside. And answer #4, for some reason, even if you have all the right answers on the other SDC questions, does not give you a clear pass on SDC. And if you fail on other tests, you have to have a clear pass on SDC or you'll fail.

But answer #4 should not invalid the fact that there is a clear lack of SDC in the scenario. A guy works from home, when he wants, can't be shifted from job to job, decides how the work should be done. He is not being controlled or supervised. Whether he's got more knowledge than the client or not, you are going to have a hard time convincing a court that he's a hidden employee.

MPwannadecentincome
3rd March 2017, 17:02
and the press reports....

HMRC blasted over "inaccurate" and "unreliable" IR35 online assessment tool (http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450414256/HMRC-blasted-over-inaccurate-and-unreliable-IR35-online-assessment-tool)

teapot418
3rd March 2017, 17:22
Can the worker choose where they work?

Changing from:

Yes - the worker decides

to:

Partly - some work has to be done in an agreed location and some can be done wherever the worker chooses

puts you inside.

Almost everybody has to occasionally attend meetings/workshops etc.

eek
3rd March 2017, 17:38
Can the worker choose where they work?

Changing from:

Yes - the worker decides

to:

Partly - some work has to be done in an agreed location and some can be done wherever the worker chooses

puts you inside.

Almost everybody has to occasionally attend meetings/workshops etc.

I think we can safely say that guidance notes are required and the answers are too simply, not specific enough and not clear enough....

Semtex
3rd March 2017, 18:55
I think we can safely say that guidance notes are required and the answers are too simply, not specific enough and not clear enough....

guidance notes for who? you? who will not be on the hook for the liability or for the PS client who will?

SueEllen
3rd March 2017, 19:01
Yes the killer question for SDC is this one

Once the worker starts the engagement, can the end client decide how the work is done?

1) The worker decides how the work needs to be done without any input from the end client =outside
4) The end client can't decide how the work needs to be done because it's a highly skilled role = at best undetermined...

And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...

The reason 4 is asked is due to the fact some experts e.g. university researchers, solicitors are employed but their employer cannot tell them what to do. They also have no management responsibilities.

I can't remember where I read this but it may have been in HMRC's literature years ago.

To differentiate between the two situations would be to ask do they have employees in the same expert role as contractors.

jamesbrown
3rd March 2017, 20:14
Yes the killer question for SDC is this one

Once the worker starts the engagement, can the end client decide how the work is done?

1) The worker decides how the work needs to be done without any input from the end client =outside
4) The end client can't decide how the work needs to be done because it's a highly skilled role = at best undetermined...

And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...

Agreed, I think this is the critical distinction w/r to the likelihood of being outside vs. undetermined on the basis of D&C alone. As I've posted elsewhere, relevant cases on the significance of the "how" element of control for a professional person include Marlen and Primary Path, where the judgements noted that, to be determinative, there needed to be a right of control and sufficient evidence of supervision of the work, beyond one that might be expected of an independent contractor.

Notable quotes from Primary Path (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01306.html&query=primary+and+path&method=boolean):


The question of control – or the degree of control which points to a situation of employment – is problematic in the case of a person who is engaged for his specialist skills. The “master” himself may well not have the skills or experience to give specific direction to the “servant”, and in the case of Morren v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council Lord Parker CJ said: “…clearly superintendence and control cannot be the decisive test when one is dealing with a professional man, or a man of some particular skill and experience.” In such a case one must look to more general questions of the level of supervision.


All in all we consider that there was a minimum supervision of Mr Winfield on the part of GSK – he was hired for his expertise to be part of a team for a particular project, and subject only to such supervision and direction as was necessary for and in the course of the management of the project as a whole he was left to do the work as he saw fit. The level of control or supervision exercised did not go beyond that which one would expect in the hiring of an independent contractor. Whilst we take note that the question of control should not be given too much significance in the case of a specialist worker, in so far as it is brought into the balance in this case it points away from a contract of employment.

I think where the tool goes wrong is to interpret "limited" significance as neutral or no significance. It should be given some weight.

Furthermore, the actual significance will depend on the facts; for example, a professional person may be contracted to work alongside other professionals, including employees of the client, who could, in principle, SD&C the contractor. In that case, it should be determinative and the answer to the question should be (1), i.e. no control, and not (4), unable to control. However, this level of nuance is far beyond the average person that is likely to be exposed to this tool. They will see the term "highly skilled role" and assume that (4) applies, when it probably doesn't.

WordIsBond
4th March 2017, 12:36
Agreed, I think this is the critical distinction w/r to the likelihood of being outside vs. undetermined on the basis of D&C alone. As I've posted elsewhere, relevant cases on the significance of the "how" element of control for a professional person include Marlen and Primary Path, where the judgements noted that, to be determinative, there needed to be a right of control and sufficient evidence of supervision of the work, beyond one that might be expected of an independent contractor.

Yes, that's the case I was vaguely remembering.

I don't have a problem with having alternative #4 on the test, since it does make a difference (though it should be worded such that #1 and #4 are mutually exclusive). The problem I see is that how it is weighted in practice doesn't reflect this wording:

The question of control – or the degree of control which points to a situation of employment – is problematic in the case of a person who is engaged for his specialist skills. The “master” himself may well not have the skills or experience to give specific direction to the “servant”, and in the case of Morren v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council Lord Parker CJ said: “…clearly superintendence and control cannot be the decisive test when one is dealing with a professional man, or a man of some particular skill and experience.” In such a case one must look to more general questions of the level of supervision. (emphasis added)

In the test case I ran, the specialist decides not only how, but when and where, the work is done. There doesn't seem to be any "looking to more general questions of the level of supervision." To have that one question determine whether a case is outside or inside, based on whether you answered 1 or 4, seems to ignore the fact that SDC still must be determined, just more generally, in the case of a specialist.

jamesbrown
4th March 2017, 13:19
There doesn't seem to be any "looking to more general questions of the level of supervision." To have that one question determine whether a case is outside or inside, based on whether you answered 1 or 4, seems to ignore the fact that SDC still must be determined, just more generally, in the case of a specialist.

Right. It's something they could address more clearly and consistently with the case law. I also don't have a problem with option (4) or the increased probability that it leads to an undetermined outcome - afterall, it is about case law, and some of that is beyond the scope of an online tool - but I don't think they've phrased the options properly, included all relevant options (such as working on a highly skilled task alongside highly skilled employees of the client), or weighted them correctly.

northernladyuk
6th March 2017, 13:57
I think we can safely say that guidance notes are required and the answers are too simply, not specific enough and not clear enough....

Surely it needs to be vague. The vagueness and fear is where HMRC rakes in the cash.

MrMarkyMark
6th March 2017, 14:00
guidance notes for who? you? who will not be on the hook for the liability or for the PS client who will?

How about some guidance notes for all that need to understand them.


Don't get your point :confused:

LondonManc
6th March 2017, 14:58
Yes the killer question for SDC is this one

Once the worker starts the engagement, can the end client decide how the work is done?

1) The worker decides how the work needs to be done without any input from the end client =outside
4) The end client can't decide how the work needs to be done because it's a highly skilled role = at best undetermined...

And the bit I can't understand is why answer 4 is even there. It doesn't add anything to the first answer other than confusion...

What are the other two options?

If 4 is true, but 1 is not true, who decides?

Quality
6th March 2017, 15:11
Still showing as BETA at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax

When will the final version be published and can the results of the BETA be used/relied upon?

SueEllen
6th March 2017, 15:43
Still showing as BETA at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax

When will the final version be published and can the results of the BETA be used/relied upon?

Gov.uk sites stay in beta for ages.

MPwannadecentincome
6th March 2017, 21:55
When this list is done then what.... write to our MPs? Tell IPSE?

I did see an email from IPSE asking for feedback on the tool by email as stated here: https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/hmrc-release-employment-status-service-ess

WordIsBond
7th March 2017, 07:58
When this list is done then what.... write to our MPs? Tell IPSE?

I did see an email from IPSE asking for feedback on the tool by email as stated here: https://www.ipse.co.uk/news/hmrc-release-employment-status-service-ess
I've already written my MP. Probably absolutely pointless.

HMRC says it is beta and welcomes feedback. Would be nice if IPSE or someone would give it to them.

willendure
9th March 2017, 21:38
:laugh

This must be the most thoroughly tested piece of software HMRC have ever produced, thanks to all the experts on here putting it through its paces.

Can you all do the same for Basic PAYE Tools? I haven't submitted a PAYE return in a good while - not had time to try and fix that pile of crap since it stopped working a while back.

Quality
10th March 2017, 15:41
Has anybody actually got their PSB to go through the tool with them and come up with a sensible decision based on the result? My client is indecisive and risk averse and despite talking about IR35 for weeks they have so far failed to use the tool for any of the contractors on-site, despite saying for weeks that is what they will do.

With my 2 weeks notice period they have only effectively got until next Friday to make a determination, or I could just walk out on 31st March and not return (will be paid on 5th April for that).

Would be nice to see some PSBs actually using and accepting the result of the tool on an individual basis.

Andy Hallett
10th March 2017, 16:27
Has anybody actually got their PSB to go through the tool with them and come up with a sensible decision based on the result? My client is indecisive and risk averse and despite talking about IR35 for weeks they have so far failed to use the tool for any of the contractors on-site, despite saying for weeks that is what they will do.

With my 2 weeks notice period they have only effectively got until next Friday to make a determination, or I could just walk out on 31st March and not return (will be paid on 5th April for that).

Would be nice to see some PSBs actually using and accepting the result of the tool on an individual basis.

Yes, the vast majority of our clients have been doing this.

MPwannadecentincome
12th March 2017, 13:37
.......


How does the tool perform using real cases?

ContractorCalculator put each of the 21 historical IR35 court cases through HMRC’s tool and the conclusions are:

For 27% of the court cases, HMRC simply says “Unknown”
10% of cases are being given a pass despite a judge failing the case in court.

Further testing of common scenarios also revealed some surprising results:

Contractors who are significantly controlled, or moved about from task to task without it being in their contract, can pass the test, contrary to what the case law says. There is no case law to support this. “Tail-end Charlies” should be classic fails
A significant number of project based contractors who should easily pass the test, are given the status “unknown”.
Whilst it appears that the tool is now hooked up to an analysis engine it is still failing to cover key areas of employment case law and is simply not fit-for-purpose.

RonBW
13th March 2017, 09:55
Given the date on that post, was it referring to the beta or the live version of the tool?

I know I've read something on their site which was about the beta, which looks similar to this post, but they may have done the same tests with the live tool as well.

DaveB
13th March 2017, 10:23
Given the date on that post, was it referring to the beta or the live version of the tool?

I know I've read something on their site which was about the beta, which looks similar to this post, but they may have done the same tests with the live tool as well.

The Beta is the live tool.

Since GDS got hold of anything web related in Govt. everything is Beta now.

Yes, I know. :suicide:

RonBW
13th March 2017, 10:36
The Beta is the live tool.

Since GDS got hold of anything web related in Govt. everything is Beta now.

Yes, I know. :suicide:

I meant that the article came out very quickly for it to be used on the live tool, so was asking whether it was done against the HMRC ESS site (which says beta) or whether it was against the private beta tests that went on.

Given the date on the article, I would guess that it was against the private beta rather than the public live (beta) :freaky:

DaveB
13th March 2017, 11:30
Not just us who have issue with it.

Accounting Web - IR35 Tool test Drive (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/personal-tax/ir35-employment-status-tool-test-driven)

Needs registration to read the full article but they aren't spammy.

Summary is that it is inaccurate, doesn't follow or simply ignores case law, displays HMRC bias towards employment and should not be relied upon regardless of the answer given.

LondonManc
13th March 2017, 12:25
Not just us who have issue with it.

Accounting Web - IR35 Tool test Drive (http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/personal-tax/ir35-employment-status-tool-test-driven)

Needs registration to read the full article but they aren't spammy.

Summary is that it is inaccurate, doesn't follow or simply ignores case law, displays HMRC bias towards employment and should not be relied upon regardless of the answer given.

So, get a QDOS outside declaration, working practices agreed outside and there will be a good chance you'll win a court case?

DaveB
13th March 2017, 12:26
So, get a QDOS outside declaration, working practices agreed outside and there will be a good chance you'll win a court case?

In theory yes, in practice who knows. HMRC are actively encouraging PS bodies to throw their contractors under a bus with regard to IR35.

eek
13th March 2017, 12:29
In theory yes, in practice who knows. HMRC are actively encouraging PS bodies to throw their contractors under a bus with regard to IR35.

Not quite. HMRC are actively trying to dissuade PS bodies from recruiting contractors....

RonBW
13th March 2017, 12:30
So, get a QDOS outside declaration, working practices agreed outside and there will be a good chance you'll win a court case?

If your working practices are outside then you will win the case every time (on the presumption that you have competent lawyers)

LondonManc
13th March 2017, 13:25
Not quite. HMRC are actively trying to dissuade PS bodies from recruiting contractors....

What do they want, green graduate consultants on three times the price for 10% of the skills and experience?

DaveB
13th March 2017, 13:31
Not quite. HMRC are actively trying to dissuade PS bodies from recruiting contractors....

HMRC don't have an issue with PSB's using contractors, they just want us all paying tax like permies. Pressuring the PSB's with things like the status tool and behind the scenes comm's to execs are the means to the end.

eek
13th March 2017, 20:50
HMRC don't have an issue with PSB's using contractors, they just want us all paying tax like permies. Pressuring the PSB's with things like the status tool and behind the scenes comm's to execs are the means to the end.

Nope HMRC do have a problem with contractors - and its a simple one. They don't understand that we are not employees and are trying to pigeon everyone as if they were employees even when they are not.