Agent - "It's that simple" Agent - "It's that simple"
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    955

    Default Agent - "It's that simple"

    Had a call from an agency about a PS gig.

    I'd rather wait until things are clearer on the IR35 thing before risking anything in the public sector, so told the agent as much and I wasn't interested. His response was that he'd enquire if it was in scope or not and if it wasn't, then I needn't worry about the changes coming in April.

    I said I don't think it's that simple and would rather not take the risk for now. His response was that it is that simple - they'll work with the client and HMRC, there's some tests (presumable the online ones that aren't ready yet) and if they say the role is outside I'll be ok.

    Forgive me if I don't share his optimistic view on all this.

  2. #2

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,931

    Default

    It's that simple...

    All that remains to be seen is how it's going to be documented in advance.

    If ClientCo PSB wishes to declare my contract outside IR35 and the agency is on board, all that i need is to start seeing my invoices paid in full and i will be happy bunny. Don't care of the HMRC tool or if the engagement scores high/low enough on it. If HMRC later decides the contract was inside IR35 - it's the PSB and agency on the hook, not me.

  3. #3

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    159

    Default

    I think it is unlikely that an end client would be willing at this stage to declare that an engagement is outside the new rules for off payroll public sector workers.

    This doesn't mean to say that it isn't true and I have heard of people being given the same reassurances.

    It would take something concrete (i.e. in writing and from the end client) to convince me that they had seriously considered the status and come to a reasoned conclusion.

    If you manage to get this level of confirmation then take it as the responsibility for getting it wrong then lies further up the chain than you.

  4. #4

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Floating in a sea of hyperbole
    Posts
    414

    Default

    I would want a formal declaration that the client has done the assessment of the role, coupled with an agreement that if HMRC later find that the role was in fact incorrectly assessed by the client that the liability falls solely on the payer before I would consider a role.

    But you're unlikely to get the first bit, let alone the second.
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. But Gandhi never had to deal with HMRC

  5. #5

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick@Intouch View Post
    I think it is unlikely that an end client would be willing at this stage to declare that an engagement is outside the new rules for off payroll public sector workers.
    Why? IR35 itself hasn't changed. ClientCo can do what most of us has been doing for a while - get the contract and working practices assessed by QDOS etc. and make a decision based on that. No need to wait on HMRC to provide half-ass tool on 06.04. I assume they can even take an insurance just like we do. Not all PSBs are clueless.


    Quote Originally Posted by RonBW View Post
    I would want a formal declaration that the client has done the assessment of the role, coupled with an agreement that if HMRC later find that the role was in fact incorrectly assessed by the client that the liability falls solely on the payer before I would consider a role.

    But you're unlikely to get the first bit, let alone the second.
    I have the first in an e-mail from the IT Director and the agency. Some more formal documentation is underway, no idea in what form.

    The second is already in the legislation - which clearly states that the financial liability for wrong decision falls with the last link in the chain before the PSC - Agency/PSB, not the PSC.
    Last edited by sal; 22nd February 2017 at 13:54.

  6. #6

    Banned


    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sal View Post
    The second is already in the legislation - which clearly states that the financial liability for wrong decision falls with the last link in the chain before the PSC - Agency/PSB, not the PSC.
    I duplicate my question here, but where exactly in the legislation does it say that?

  7. #7

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pscont View Post
    I duplocate my question here, but where exactly in the legislation does it say that?
    It's in 10(2) of the ITEPA (draft Finance Bill 2017), which deals with IR35, notably draft Clause 61N(3): "The fee-payer is treated as making to the worker, and the worker is treated as receiving, a payment which is to be treated as earnings from an employment". This is all subject to the fraud clauses though.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  8. #8

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    11,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    It's in 10(2) of the ITEPA (draft Finance Bill 2017), which deals with IR35, notably draft Clause 61N(3): "The fee-payer is treated as making to the worker, and the worker is treated as receiving, a payment which is to be treated as earnings from an employment". This is all subject to the fraud clauses though.
    That's the responsibility for deducting the correct taxes though isn't? The responsibility for saying those taxes are to be deducted lies with the client. Or, if the client says the role is outside IR35, the PSC as it is now.
    Blog? What blog...?

  9. #9

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    That's the responsibility for deducting the correct taxes though isn't? The responsibility for saying those taxes are to be deducted lies with the client. Or, if the client says the role is outside IR35, the PSC as it is now.
    Dunno. You'll have to ask JamesBrown. I just copied his response from the other thread the OP asked the same question in.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  10. #10

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Floating in a sea of hyperbole
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    It's in 10(2) of the ITEPA (draft Finance Bill 2017), which deals with IR35, notably draft Clause 61N(3): "The fee-payer is treated as making to the worker, and the worker is treated as receiving, a payment which is to be treated as earnings from an employment". This is all subject to the fraud clauses though.
    As I've posted elsewhere, it's also in the guidance from HMG on how to apply the rules.
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. But Gandhi never had to deal with HMRC

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •