I am in a contract working for a public sector client.
I have been contracting for 16 years and on this project for 4.
When the Public Sector Changes came about my client determined the contract was inside IR35. At the time, I put my rate up and accepted it; thinking it would only be short term anyway. However the project has had some changes and been extended several times. They have asked me to stay beyond the end of my current contract until the end of next year.
However, I need to get out of IR35.
My contract and my working practices are outside IR35. The contract stipulates a substitution clause; this is the basis that the client has determined me inside IR35, because they would expect to reject a substitute on the basis that I designed and implemented most of this project, and meaningful work at this point requires an intimate knowledge that a new substitute could not have. Fair enough.
But also my contract stipulates no MOO, and no Control, both of which are correct. Regarding control, I designed the architecture; I chose the frameworks, languages and dependencies that I work with. The client gives me a requirement and I produce it hoe I see fit. The only control they exert is that we agree, sometimes, when and where the work needs to be completed as some of the work needs direct access to network servers. Sometimes I work off site in my own office on my own equipment.
But CEST! Every time I have been through the tool, the substitution issue causes an inside verdict. To pass CEST without Substitution, the Control element needs to be absolute, which does not seem right. I agree with my client days which I am going to be in and out of the office. According to my accountant this is enough to satisfy the law, but CEST is biased.
How do you convince a client to ignore CEST? The problem clearly is that we are asking people with no tax knowledge to make a decision like this.
Any advice?
I have been contracting for 16 years and on this project for 4.
When the Public Sector Changes came about my client determined the contract was inside IR35. At the time, I put my rate up and accepted it; thinking it would only be short term anyway. However the project has had some changes and been extended several times. They have asked me to stay beyond the end of my current contract until the end of next year.
However, I need to get out of IR35.
My contract and my working practices are outside IR35. The contract stipulates a substitution clause; this is the basis that the client has determined me inside IR35, because they would expect to reject a substitute on the basis that I designed and implemented most of this project, and meaningful work at this point requires an intimate knowledge that a new substitute could not have. Fair enough.
But also my contract stipulates no MOO, and no Control, both of which are correct. Regarding control, I designed the architecture; I chose the frameworks, languages and dependencies that I work with. The client gives me a requirement and I produce it hoe I see fit. The only control they exert is that we agree, sometimes, when and where the work needs to be completed as some of the work needs direct access to network servers. Sometimes I work off site in my own office on my own equipment.
But CEST! Every time I have been through the tool, the substitution issue causes an inside verdict. To pass CEST without Substitution, the Control element needs to be absolute, which does not seem right. I agree with my client days which I am going to be in and out of the office. According to my accountant this is enough to satisfy the law, but CEST is biased.
How do you convince a client to ignore CEST? The problem clearly is that we are asking people with no tax knowledge to make a decision like this.
Any advice?
Comment