• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

IR35 unfriendly wording

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Gittins Gal View Post
    I've always been slightly sceptical over IR35 insurance. So many of the criteria that are used to assess whether or not you are eligible for cover are what I call grey areas.

    I mean, look at the question of substitution. QDOS state that you can be covered if you are not aware of any reason why you would not be permitted to deploy a substitute.

    Ok, if you're at this stage it's a safe assumption that the contract SAYS you can do it but can you do it in reality?

    I am sure this could be used as a sticking point in event of a claim.
    You know nothing about it, having never used and so are sceptical. That's sensible.

    Then you become sure of something you admit to being sceptical about ??

    Schizo-chick !!
    When freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
      QDOS clarified this in a post awhile back but I can't find it. As long as there is a possibility or expectation (can't remember the wording they used) that there is RoS it doesn't have to be exercised. A Letter of Confirmation from the client should back up your RoS which would be useful either way.
      But the client will probably tell you to bugger off and the RoS will be shown to be a sham. It is of course probably a sham anyway but by clarifying you lose the safety of the grey areas in which many of us operate.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Gittins Gal View Post
        I've always been slightly sceptical over IR35 insurance. So many of the criteria that are used to assess whether or not you are eligible for cover are what I call grey areas.

        I mean, look at the question of substitution. QDOS state that you can be covered if you are not aware of any reason why you would not be permitted to deploy a substitute.

        Ok, if you're at this stage it's a safe assumption that the contract SAYS you can do it but can you do it in reality?

        I am sure this could be used as a sticking point in event of a claim.
        When you get a contract reviewed, the reviewer is simply passing their opinion as to whether it passes or fails for IR35, likewise if HMRC looked at it their argument would be based on their opinion. If Qdos (or the likes of) are happy to back up their opinion with an insurance policy then that should give you more confidence in what they have said!

        On the RoS stuff, I find it unlikely that an insurance payout could be declined based on whether a RoS was exercised - even by HMRC it only needs to be a right of substitution, it doesn't need to be exercised. If it has been exercised then I guess you would have a stronger case with HMRC.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by DirtyDog View Post

          3) Take the role, declare yourself outside IR35 for this one, and hope that you avoid an investigation.
          This one, but only because I'm not risk averse and the odds are still in my favour.
          Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
            But the client will probably tell you to bugger off and the RoS will be shown to be a sham. It is of course probably a sham anyway but by clarifying you lose the safety of the grey areas in which many of us operate.
            This is true but I would guess when the client says no is the key. It would be interesting to know what would happen if there has been no indication the RoS is a sham and the insurance investigation is on going and then the client turns round and says this even though it was never indicated or tested during contract. If the client turned round and said something wolly like 'it may have been possible' or 'refer to contract' then you still have an out.
            'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

            Comment


              #36
              All this going to the client for this or asking the client to clarify that seems totally wrong to me.

              I always operated on the principle of giving the client zero or as little grief as possible. Making my problems into their problems ?? never
              (\__/)
              (>'.'<)
              ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                This is true but I would guess when the client says no is the key. It would be interesting to know what would happen if there has been no indication the RoS is a sham and the insurance investigation is on going and then the client turns round and says this even though it was never indicated or tested during contract. If the client turned round and said something wolly like 'it may have been possible' or 'refer to contract' then you still have an out.
                Hmm, inneresting.

                So really the outcome of any IR35 investigation is predicated on the whim of the client. Now, in my case I've worked for some pretty large outfits and the chances are that whoever was the entity representing "the client" when I was working there will no longer be in that role at the time of investigation. Indeed, they may have left the outfit altogether.

                So, that conversation I had with him/her in which I was told that it would be feasible to use a substitute would presumably be overridden by the No Way Jose given by his/her replacement to the HMRC investigator.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Gittins Gal View Post
                  So, that conversation I had with him/her in which I was told that it would be feasible to use a substitute would presumably be overridden by the No Way Jose given by his/her replacement to the HMRC investigator.
                  correct...... and that's the way HMRC want it.....
                  merely at clientco for the entertainment

                  Comment


                    #39
                    there has always been no down side to the client, part of the problem with IR35.
                    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by vetran View Post
                      there has always been no down side to the client, part of the problem with IR35.
                      I repeat my comment immediately above yours

                      Originally posted by eek View Post
                      correct...... and that's the way HMRC want it.....
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X