IR35 when it is public sector

[CheeseSlice]

And if the client changes their mind, the agent may need to pick sides in any dispute.
In my experience of this (not IR35 but a very stressful legal matter) the agent sides with the client.
Document everything!

[jamesbrown]

I would still want the paperwork. What if client change their mind when HMRC ask a number of years later?

There is no scenario in which the liability can be passed on to the supplier, as a matter of statute law, other than fraud. You should be aware of any contract clauses in your contract with the fee payer that seek to transfer liability (hence commercial review), but I don’t see that working in practice because the client made the decision in the first place and the supply chain acted in good faith. In this new world, there are all sorts of problems, but I don’t see an ongoing risk to the supplier as being one of them when a client says the contract is outside. I also don’t see much value in the supplier conducting an IR35 review, rather a commercial review.

[BlueSharp]

A quick chat with the tax line confirmed it needs to be documented and confirmed by the person who did the review.

[fidot]

I also don’t see much value in the supplier conducting an IR35 review, rather a commercial review.

Agreed. Despite the scenario being unlikely, I still think that not getting the written client status determination for one's own records introduces an element of doubt. I would keep it alongside the contract in my records.

[jamesbrown]

Agreed. Despite the scenario being unlikely, I still think that not getting the written client status determination for one's own records introduces an element of doubt. I would keep it alongside the contract in my records.

Absolutely, you want the written status from the client and they are obliged to provide it within a statutory period.

[PCTNN]

OK I'm bumping this up because I've come across something a bit bizarre and would like to understand if any of you have ever experienced a similar situation.

Contract role at a public sector organization, the agency advertises it as outside ir35 which is also written all over the job spec from the client. Everything good on paper, BUT at the interview, when asked about the project I'd be working on, the client just says there's not one specific project but it's mainly BAU, support of permanent staff (they don't have a permie with my skillset) and other bits and bobs.

Now, what's the deal with that? Why have they deemed the contract outside when it clearly is inside?

Are they trying to get away with it, thinking the focus of hmrc will be on private sector companies rather than public sector ones?

Am I missing something?

[JohntheBike]

OK I'm bumping this up because I've come across something a bit bizarre and would like to understand if any of you have ever experienced a similar situation.

Contract role at a public sector organization, the agency advertises it as outside ir35 which is also written all over the job spec from the client. Everything good on paper, BUT at the interview, when asked about the project I'd be working on, the client just says there's not one specific project but it's mainly BAU, support of permanent staff (they don't have a permie with my skillset) and other bits and bobs.

Now, what's the deal with that? Why have they deemed the contract outside when it clearly is inside?

Are they trying to get away with it, thinking the focus of hmrc will be on private sector companies rather than public sector ones?

Am I missing something?

I work on BAU support and my contract has been professionally assessed by Markel Tax as not subject to IR35.

[Lance]

I work on BAU support and my contract has been professionally assessed by Markel Tax as not subject to IR35.

your contract may have been. What about the working practises?

I suppose in theory BAU is OK as long as you have deliverables, and you don't deviate from those deliverable. Proving that is likely harder though.

If you are in effect doing the same work as a permie, just paying less tax, then I'd not fancy your chances in a tribunal trying to argue that you're not a disguised employee. I'd be buying TLC35 at that point.

[Paralytic]

Now, what's the deal with that? Why have they deemed the contract outside when it clearly is inside?

The question i'd be asking myself is: What would happen if HMRC did investigate and found the role inside, but its a public body contract and the client had determined the role outside.

If I was sure that the risk was with the client (ie. any tax/penalties would be due by them) then I'd likely go ahead an not say anything.

But if the risk fell onto me (eg, the client/agent had indemnified themselves) then I'd be challenging things.

[mudskipper]

OK I'm bumping this up because I've come across something a bit bizarre and would like to understand if any of you have ever experienced a similar situation.

Contract role at a public sector organization, the agency advertises it as outside ir35 which is also written all over the job spec from the client. Everything good on paper, BUT at the interview, when asked about the project I'd be working on, the client just says there's not one specific project but it's mainly BAU, support of permanent staff (they don't have a permie with my skillset) and other bits and bobs.

Now, what's the deal with that? Why have they deemed the contract outside when it clearly is inside?

Are they trying to get away with it, thinking the focus of hmrc will be on private sector companies rather than public sector ones?

Am I missing something?

One possibility is that they are happy to accept a substitute - that gives a straight outside determination on CEST.