SJD passes contract on IR35 QDOS fail

[7specialgems]

Which, in my opinion is exactly why people need to know the intricacies of the legislation to be able to make an informed decision yourself and not play clueless contract pinball. Odd, with recent threads going on, that people still seem to think not.

It left me feeling that way for sure. I used to feel like a QDos review was suitable due diligence. After that encounter I was left in no doubt that their experts disagree with one another and that an IR35 pass now may be come to seen as an IR35 fail by them in the future.

How can I come to rely on this due dilligence in the future if I am one of the unlucky ones to be investigated?

How can I be sure if their TLC35 product would be there for me if they previously passed a contract but in the present day may now feel differently about it?

For that reason I now get the contract reviewed twice by two different companies.

If I get two passes and there aren't any features in there that worry me anyway, game on.

[TheFaQQer]

Namely the no price period thing (contractor cannot give notice)

When I used Qdos (years ago) I had one review fail because the contractor could not give notice and one review pass including that clause. When I queried the fail (and mentioned the pass) the response was along the lines of "oh, yes, you're right that should be a pass then"

I've not had a contract reviewed by Qdos in a long long time though.

[blossom]

When I used Qdos (years ago) I had one review fail because the contractor could not give notice and one review pass including that clause. When I queried the fail (and mentioned the pass) the response was along the lines of "oh, yes, you're right that should be a pass then"

I've not had a contract reviewed by Qdos in a long long time though.

It's odd that I had the 'same but opposite' experience and now I'm just not sure what is correct. My contract had a 'cannot give notice clause'. The way it was worded made the QDOS guy think that it meant no notice - i.e. contractor doesn't need to give any notice, so he passed it on that basis. I called him to advise that I thought it meant the opposite. He told me to have that removed and bring it down to either no notice, or a period of no longer than four weeks, on the basis that telling me I need to stay with them causes issues with MOO.

Really clueless at the moment.

Who do you go with now? Are IPSE considered the better option?

[TheFaQQer]

It's odd that I had the 'same but opposite' experience and now I'm just not sure what is correct. My contract had a 'cannot give notice clause'. The way it was worded made the QDOS guy think that it meant no notice - i.e. contractor doesn't need to give any notice, so he passed it on that basis. I called him to advise that I thought it meant the opposite. He told me to have that removed and bring it down to either no notice, or a period of no longer than four weeks, on the basis that telling me I need to stay with them causes issues with MOO.

Really clueless at the moment.

Who do you go with now? Are IPSE considered the better option?

It is confusing, don't worry about it

On the one hand, some would argue that if the contractor cannot terminate then there is an obligation to keep working there and therefore it's an indicator that you are an employee. On the other hand, no employee would ever have a contract that says that they cannot leave until the work is complete and so it has to be an indicator away from being an employee. From the advice that I have seen in numerous places, plus my own thinking on the topic, I'm much more in the latter camp - my company is engaged to deliver specific work and when that is complete it's the end of the contract.

My next contract review will either be via the IPSE contract review service (when it is back up and running) or via Abbey Tax (with an IPSE discount) - I want a comprehensive review done by people that I trust and I'm prepared to pay for it to get that. I've not heard any negative comments about it.

[northernladuk]

It's odd that I had the 'same but opposite' experience and now I'm just not sure what is correct. My contract had a 'cannot give notice clause'. The way it was worded made the QDOS guy think that it meant no notice - i.e. contractor doesn't need to give any notice, so he passed it on that basis. I called him to advise that I thought it meant the opposite. He told me to have that removed and bring it down to either no notice, or a period of no longer than four weeks, on the basis that telling me I need to stay with them causes issues with MOO.

Really clueless at the moment.

Who do you go with now? Are IPSE considered the better option?

I'd be speaking to them again and ask them to go through the whole thing again but this time use terms like 'no notice clause' and 'zero days notice' to clarify.

I'd also drop Seb Marley a note and ask him to look at the whole thing. From what you are saying it sounds like QDOS need to get a bit smarter in this area, even if it's just using better terminology.

[blossom]

I'd be speaking to them again and ask them to go through the whole thing again but this time use terms like 'no notice clause' and 'zero days notice' to clarify.

I'd also drop Seb Marley a note and ask him to look at the whole thing. From what you are saying it sounds like QDOS need to get a bit smarter in this area, even if it's just using better terminology.

Thanks, I will contact him. Definitely needs to be consistency. I'm not too bothered because i managed to get out of mine and ran like the wind, but will be much more aware for the next one.

It was a guy called Kieran Firmstone - Contracts and Status Specialist - who did mine.

[blossom]

It is confusing, don't worry about it

On the one hand, some would argue that if the contractor cannot terminate then there is an obligation to keep working there and therefore it's an indicator that you are an employee. On the other hand, no employee would ever have a contract that says that they cannot leave until the work is complete and so it has to be an indicator away from being an employee. From the advice that I have seen in numerous places, plus my own thinking on the topic, I'm much more in the latter camp - my company is engaged to deliver specific work and when that is complete it's the end of the contract.

My next contract review will either be via the IPSE contract review service (when it is back up and running) or via Abbey Tax (with an IPSE discount) - I want a comprehensive review done by people that I trust and I'm prepared to pay for it to get that. I've not heard any negative comments about it.

Thanks, I will check out Abbey Tax too.

[doconline]

Thanks, I will contact him. Definitely needs to be consistency. I'm not too bothered because i managed to get out of mine and ran like the wind, but will be much more aware for the next one.

It was a guy called Kieran Firmstone - Contracts and Status Specialist - who did mine.

They seem to have quite a few 'Contract and Status Specialists'. I wasn't too impressed with the service I got when I got my last one reviewed by QDOS a couple of months ago. I don't want to put anyone down, but a bit of LinkedIn research shows their 'Contract and Status Specialists' don't have a great deal of qualifications / training. Not sure if they just follow a template / checklist or not? I will be looking elsewhere (probably one of the other mentioned already on this thread) next time I am getting a contract reviewed.

[Qdos Contractor]

The issue of consistency and differing opinions is a difficult area when it comes to IR35. This is particularly the case when we are solely reviewing a set of written terms, which is why we always emphasise that the actual working practices are pivotal.

An opinion on your written contract is not an opinion on your overall IR35 status, which will only be definitively set at the end of a lengthy enquiry by HMRC or a tribunal judge. To give certainty based on a contract alone would be impossible.

We have always used the ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ route with contract reviews to make remedial action easier. Ultimately it is helpful to have a line by which we can base our decision making on, but this is not a direct reflection on what the end result of an enquiry would be.

Occasionally the opinions of IR35 specialists may differ slightly, and any opinion they give will always be in the context of the circumstances, the nature of the services and wider terms in the contract.

We pride ourselves in our reputation as one of the UK’s top IR35 specialists, having reviewed in excess 160,000 contracts and successfully defended over 1,600 contractors in HMRC investigations. Our team have a variety of experience from IR35 specifically, general tax consultancy and employment law. All undergo extensive in house training from the start of and throughout their career with us.

Where you feel you have not received great service or question the technical accuracy of the work undertaken, as above please get in touch with me directly and I will investigate each case.

Seb Maley, CEO

[mudskipper]

I used the IPSE (direct) template last week

re: notice, it specified 1 month's notice for the consultancy to the client, and that the client can terminate immediately at any time.