How do you know if your contract is public sector

[LondonManc]

Public sector being naturally risk averse, I'd suggest the default position will be "inside". Unless PMs point out the brown runny stuff is going to hit the fan imminently unless they get contractors "outside IR35" in. Equally, those making the decisions are generally bean counters. Capability to do the work? Pah, being incapable will make people fit in perfectly!

Is the right answer.

The real fact is that of the contract market in IT, over half should be inside IR35 but are not. While the contracts issued may be reviewed as outside, working practices for so many contractors and their own behaviours put them inside.

Perhaps this is the kick up the contracting industry's 'arris that was needed?

[perplexed]

Is the right answer.

The real fact is that of the contract market in IT, over half should be inside IR35 but are not. While the contracts issued may be reviewed as outside, working practices for so many contractors and their own behaviours put them inside.

Perhaps this is the kick up the contracting industry's 'arris that was needed?

I'd agree. The contract side is easily solvable, has been for a long, long time.

Working practices is still a fine art. I'd say the reality is it's rare that all the ducks are in a row to ensure you're 100% by anybodies stretch of the imagination undeniably outside IR35. Most know enough to structure things so they are virtually outside, or more accurately on balance outside.

[youngguy]

"They've not got any free permies to do the work, no SME involved to do the work so they've determined it's a contract role".

Didn't really convince me tbh.

I had something similar a while back . Just say you are happy to consider it as soon as you get written confirmation from the agent/client it is outside and if that changes in future your ltd won't be liable for the tax . That soon wakes them up and gets them nervous and off the phone.

[BoredBloke]

I reckon at some point there will start to be roles that the client deems outside IR35. However what happens if HMRC disagrees with this? Presumably the end client will be liable for the employer tax that should have been deducted, but what about the knock on effects to the contractor. If you are inside IR35 then you can't claim t&s expenses. So would HMRC come after you for the amounts you have claimed which you shouldn't have been allowed to?

[LondonManc]

I reckon at some point there will start to be roles that the client deems outside IR35. However what happens if HMRC disagrees with this? Presumably the end client will be liable for the employer tax that should have been deducted, but what about the knock on effects to the contractor. If you are inside IR35 then you can't claim t&s expenses. So would HMRC come after you for the amounts you have claimed which you shouldn't have been allowed to?

HMRC will want their pound of flesh. They reckon (quite reasonably) that over half of all contract roles should be inside. I reckon that if they get a 60% inside rate once the s**tstorm settles, they'll be happy.

[jamesbrown]

Presumably the end client will be liable for the employer tax that should have been deducted

You'd think, but the fee payer is actually the deemed employer, so they'll be on the hook. In other words, would an agency be willing to risk an outside determination made by a PS client? They might if the rules were so tightly calibrated towards false employment, but it's doubtful. Whether the agency would have a case to sue the PS client for a wrongful determination is also interesting on some level of . However, the big picture seems fairly clear - very few, if any, outside IR35 contracts.

[perplexed]

You'd think, but the fee payer is actually the deemed employer, so they'll be on the hook. In other words, would an agency be willing to risk an outside determination made by a PS client? They might if the rules were so tightly calibrated towards false employment, but it's doubtful. Whether the agency would have a case to sue the PS client for a wrongful determination is also interesting on some level of . However, the big picture seems fairly clear - very few, if any, outside IR35 contracts.

Initially very few.

In reality, may will be within by PS orgs will claim outside to get things done. If that means being amenable on working practices, absolutely.

I've had around 250 calls ( lost count tbh ) with regards to one specific PS org since August across a limited number of projects. Had 4 today about another PS org - all for roles which the job spec indicates to me is the same role they've been looking to contract out for a year or so. Same project description, same skills.

Desparation will see a nod and a wink agreement for roles to be outside, from expediency.

[jamesbrown]

Desparation will see a nod and a wink agreement for roles to be outside, from expediency.

Unless they're for specialists, not BoS contractors, I think that's going to be tough. There's a limit to what you can do with actual working practices for BoS roles. Finding more money would be less risky, if it becomes critical. I don't know, I'm guessing along with everyone else. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out, but I'm not optimistic (or anywhere near the PS )

[psychocandy]

Its a complete mess to be honest.

I'm the same, contracted to a consultancy (A) who provide services to PS client (B). B pays the A for services - they have no say in how those services are provided. Yes they know whos on site from A but they generally don't know or care whos perm or contractor. They also have no say in who A provides.

From As point of view, they'd like things to go on as they are. Suits them to have a few contractors. Can't imagine it would go down too well if the B stuck their oar in and said X needs to pay proper tax - sort it out A. After all, the business relationship is one of supplier and customer - not one where the customer dictates to supplier how they run their business.

So far, A has sent an email to all the contractors saying basically we dont know how its going to work out yet.

Would suggest it needs to be sorted BEFORE its going to be possible to sign an extension past April. For instance, my current gig runs until end Feb so if I renew it going well into.

As someone said, earlier in the thread, its a LOT of money. I dont want to take a gig thinking its going to be £X per day then for someone to decide and say sorry its £100 a day less because we've taken the tax out.

For me, Im going to need confirmation in the contract that this wont happen.

Of course, as with all things, clients won't even do anything about this and will only start to be concerned months/years down the line when they realise they can't get contractors any more.

[youngguy]

Its a complete mess to be honest.

I'm the same, contracted to a consultancy (A) who provide services to PS client (B). B pays the A for services - they have no say in how those services are provided. Yes they know whos on site from A but they generally don't know or care whos perm or contractor. They also have no say in who A provides.

From As point of view, they'd like things to go on as they are. Suits them to have a few contractors. Can't imagine it would go down too well if the B stuck their oar in and said X needs to pay proper tax - sort it out A. After all, the business relationship is one of supplier and customer - not one where the customer dictates to supplier how they run their business.

So far, A has sent an email to all the contractors saying basically we dont know how its going to work out yet.

Would suggest it needs to be sorted BEFORE its going to be possible to sign an extension past April. For instance, my current gig runs until end Feb so if I renew it going well into.

As someone said, earlier in the thread, its a LOT of money. I dont want to take a gig thinking its going to be £X per day then for someone to decide and say sorry its £100 a day less because we've taken the tax out.

For me, Im going to need confirmation in the contract that this wont happen.

Of course, as with all things, clients won't even do anything about this and will only start to be concerned months/years down the line when they realise they can't get contractors any more.

Is this not clear? Example 3 in the doc showed that a contractor working under a consultancy providing services to ps was caught and the consultancy would collect the taxes .

It's been a while since I looked at the doc though