On point 2. It's not for MH to make that classification so no way with they legally document. In fact quite the opposite. Don't most Contracts have a clause indemnifying the agent against any tax issues so they are actually distancing themselves from it all?
-
'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!
-
Kind of agree, but it appears the 'in / out' decision is passed down from the End Client through the intermediary's and the one most important to the contractor is the one closest to them.Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
What I find very interesting is that MH must have knew about the schemes fragility in the eyes of the IR in May :
We're aware of HSBC-like intermediary models, IR35 officials say
...and so surely must have got their legal people to triple check everything as they knew they were already on the IR radar. Looks like they must have checked and carried on anyway.Comment
-
My take on the new rules is:-
It didn't matter how many companies you put in front of the end client; it was still the end client who had to sign off on the IR35 assessment.Comment
-
Hence my point 1 regarding whether HSBC have stated whether they consider the contractors working for MH to be inside or outside. If I was one of the contractors I would want to know this.Originally posted by ContractorHardman View PostComment
-
Have heard a rumour that GTIS are engaging contractors via their existing HCL managed services contract as unnamed resources with the intention of continuing business as usual. I can't see what difference that will make in the slightest and almost hope HMRC take Barclays to task for it.Comment
-
It's obvious to me that this is just a construct attempting to bypass the rules, but how are HCL actingly different from Capita (for example) ?Comment
-
Exactly the same happened quite a few years ago when all contractors were walked off Radbroke Hall. Key people got shifted in to the Tech Mahindra managed service offering. That was just to move head count in to a cost so worked.
At a very basic level this idea might look like it works but the scratch the service and the whole model falls apart. Same person, same role etc.
I do hope they'll stamp this out soon before HMRC unravels it and the contractors are doubley screwed. .'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
I guess it depends how different the setup and role actually is. A managed service implies that the maintenance of an app or some other tech is being outsourced, and would now have an SLA etc. Clientco wouldn't be responsible for it anymore. If the contractors are now working for the MSP to provide services, then that does look quite different to me. Clientco wouldn't have the ability to interview a contractor or determine IR35 status as it is none of their concern (I'm making some assumptions here). MSP deals with its own staffing, and can swap staff in or out as they please. The MSP would have to determine status though.Originally posted by northernladuk View PostComment
-
Totally. But if its a straight body shop rather than soaking in to their service offering then nope.
If they extend that service offering to 'ad hoc' work done then nope as well.
Devil will be in the details but I've a feeling in a majority of cases it will fall woefully short.
Interesting stuff and hopefully someone being suckled in to this will tell us warts n all.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Discussions so far at client Co (Bank) - a separate company is being set up by agency as MSP with sow type contracts including nominal financial penalty for not delivering on milestones. This hasn't been communicated to contractors yet and is just being filtered down from those in the know.
Sent from my CLT-L29 using Contractor UK Forum mobile appComment
Comment