*** beware - isle 35 ***

[ladymuck]

Erm

It is up to the client to determine the IR35 status, what makes you think the agency do this?

[oliverson]

Humour me. Why is it clueless?

Better still, someone else give their thoughts because I'm just not seeing why all the ***'s and to beware.

If you can't be arsed reading it properly, what's the point? Seems like you're that way out today. Forget it, I've other more worthwhile things to do.

[northernladuk]

If you can't be arsed reading it properly, what's the point? Seems like you're that way out today. Forget it, I've other more worthwhile things to do.

I'm genuinely not getting it so gonna wait to see what other people say. If i've got it completely wrong I'll apologise and delete the comments that are detracting from the real issue.

[oliverson]

Erm

It is up to the client to determine the IR35 status, what makes you think the agency do this?

So who will determine the IR35 status of the contractors? The legislation puts the burden of responsibility on the entity that pays the contractor, and very often this will be a recruitment agency.

Guide to Private Sector IR35 Reform for Recruitment Agencies

[northernladuk]

Guide to Private Sector IR35 Reform for Recruitment Agencies

[oliverson]

I'm genuinely not getting it so gonna wait to see what other people say. If i've got it completely wrong I'll apologise and delete the comments that are detracting from the real issue.

Exhibit A - liberal use of the phrase 'Isle 35'
All our contracts are Isle 35 friendly, The clauses are written in a way that falls outside of Isle 35.

Exhibit B.1 - incorrect statement 'the end client' isn't necessarily responsible, it may be the agent - see response to other poster above
Exhibit B.2 - contradiction - IR35 friendly contract now becomes inside IR35 contract with tax collected at source
From April 2020, it will no longer be a contractor’s responsibility to determine their own isle 35 status. The end client (The Banks) will be responsible for determining the contractor’s employment status and fee (recruitment agency’s), will be responsible for deducting the correct tax and national insurance.[/U]

Exhibit C - admission that they don't understand the legislation and yet they're already providing advice on it
Internal resources are being brought in to understand the legislation, perform assessments for contractors (Isle 35 project teams).

Exhibit D.1 - naivety in the assumption that clients will be happy to pay inflated rates
Exhibit D.2 - another naive assumption that contractors are happy to have their 'profiles' frigged with
In April what you are likely to see is a raise in day rates – clients pay more to contracts to advocate for the increase in National Income Tax. [agency] will have to review CV’s and amend them accordingly.

[simes]

Guide to Private Sector IR35 Reform for Recruitment Agencies

It would be nice to think we do not get arsey with one another over respective understandings of something that even the authors do not, cannot, will never fully understand themselves.

That said, to be fair, this link says the Agency Administers the decision. But that the decision rests with the Client.

[ladymuck]

I think you need to chill a little.

Yes, the agency is doing a very poor job. It's obvious someone has done a find/replace and not proof-read for unintended consquences.

The legislation is very clear that the end client is responsible for determining the status. What the article you linked to describes is a likely outcome that the task could be pushed to the agency but it is not their responsibility. On that front, you are wrong and the agency is right.

In some areas, contract rates did rise in direct response to the Public Sector changes so to make an assumption that the same will happen in the Private Sector is not without foundation. I was working at Imperial College before the public sector changes came in and I was offered a 30% increase if I would go back because they made a blanket determination that everyone was inside. My experience is not an isolated case.

[jamesbrown]

Putting aside the obvious and humorous misspelling, it doesn't look wrong to me. This is the only garbled sentence, really:

In April what you are likely to see is a raise in day rates – clients pay more to contracts to advocate for the increase in National Income Tax. [agency] will have to review CV’s and amend them accordingly.

No idea what that is supposed to me, but you'd be nuts to stay in contract across a status transition, regardless of rate.

[JohntheBike]

This is a structure where an agency is involved. How will it work, if, like me the individual contracts to a software house, who in theory can allocate the individual to any of the software house's clients?However, I only work for one of the software house's clients.