Another IR35 question

[wurzel]

I've often heard it said that ultimately the true test of whether you are outside of IR35 comes when your working practices are scrutinised & that the wording of the contract itself doesn't really hold much sway even if it seems very IR35 friendly.

In respect of this, when you have a contract whose wording puts you pretty firmly within IR35 but your working practices suggest otherwise would the IR just look at the contract wording & decide against you or would you have the opportunity to demonstrate that you were outside IR35 by virtue of your working practices? i.e. does it cut both ways?

[TheFaQQer]

You would have the chance to demonstrate that the contract was outside IR35. This is made somewhat harder by relying on a client to (a) remember what you were doing; (b) be interested in helping your case; and (c) saying exactly the right thing.

Having an IR35 friendly contract is a good way to help the situation (it can't hurt), but is by no means a guarantee that you are outside.

[Qdos Contractor]

You would have the chance to demonstrate that the contract was outside IR35. This is made somewhat harder by relying on a client to (a) remember what you were doing; (b) be interested in helping your case; and (c) saying exactly the right thing.

Having an IR35 friendly contract is a good way to help the situation (it can't hurt), but is by no means a guarantee that you are outside.

I was about to reply, but you've said exactly what I was going to. Do you want a job?

The contract is always the first port of call. If it's a good contract HMRC will try to prove that it's not worth the paper it's written on. If it's a bad contract they'll use the negative clauses against you as much as possible. They are nice like that.

It works both ways though. We've insure people on their working practices alone, so we are confident they'll be ok even if their contract is dodgy.

[galbers]

I was about to reply, but you've said exactly what I was going to. Do you want a job?

The contract is always the first port of call. If it's a good contract HMRC will try to prove that it's not worth the paper it's written on. If it's a bad contract they'll use the negative clauses against you as much as possible. They are nice like that.

It works both ways though. We've insure people on their working practices alone, so we are confident they'll be ok even if their contract is dodgy.

Hmm, this I find interesting. I have the QDOS cover and recently submitted a new contract for review. When told it failed IR35, I specifically had to ask what were the implications of this with regard to my cover. I was informed it meant I would not be covered, No mention was made of my actual working practices and whether this would change the position.