Retrospective IR35 investigations

[Skint]

I'd be reading the terms and conditions of the insurance policy very carefully. HMRC will absolutely be sending out generic letters to all those with the same client who are now umbrella/paye and who were previously Ltd and declaring outside. They have the data. If the client has said no Ltds/all roles inside then the client is basically agreeing with HMRC's view of the role as it always was - inside. Imagine you are the judge at the tribunal. Client says inside, HMRC says inside, one man band says outside.

There is absolutely no way I would be staying at the same client without an outside determination from them even with the insurance.

I don't disagree with any of that but many end clients have said no Ltds not because they consider anyone inside, but because they won't/can't deal with the burden of the determination/SDS process for hundreds of people. From their perspective it's a huge undertaking.

[madame SasGuru]

I don't disagree with any of that but many end clients have said no Ltds not because they consider anyone inside, but because they won't/can't deal with the burden of the determination/SDS process for hundreds of people. From their perspective it's a huge undertaking.

It’s not the undertaking that’s the problem - it’s the risk of junior staff agreeing bad cases resulting in HMRC making them a test case and asking for the 300 valid outside contracts to be included after demonstrating that the test case should have been inside.

[NeedTheSunshine]

I don't disagree with any of that but many end clients have said no Ltds not because they consider anyone inside, but because they won't/can't deal with the burden of the determination/SDS process for hundreds of people. From their perspective it's a huge undertaking.

Is that what the client will say when HMRC come knocking? That's a risk I wouldn't be willing to take. It's no skin off their nose if they say maybe you should have been inside and HMRC tell them that they consider you should have been inside. Why get involved in the hassle or arguing it was outside on your behalf. It's not the client that has to pay the back tax.

[Lance]

I have banned contractorcontractor for 1 day.

Let me make myself perfectly clear - I will not have posts that frighten people with talk of criminal tax evasion if they move from outside to inside IR35.

This is not the case.

(As for his arguments regarding tax avoidance and duty-free cigarettes, he can knock himself out with that argument in General.)

well that escalated quickly.....

[cojak]

No - it got stopped quickly.

Debate and speculation is ok (provided it is stated as such), but I treat any such comments that might needlessly affect people's mental health quickly and decisively. I view it that seriously.

The new IR35 is stressful enough for many, let's not make it worse than we have to.

People are welcome to complain to Admin if they view this as heavy-handed.

Personally, I don't care.

[JohntheBike]

Dave's LinkedIn post begins "We are starting to hear..." and was a call for evidence, but it isn't clear whether any hard evidence has actually surfaced.

accepted

[JohntheBike]

Some colleagues here think the magic solution is insurance. Qdos for one, have said that their IR35 Enquiry insurance cover is retrospective. So in the worst case, the individual switches from contract to umbrella (staying with same client, same project), HMRC open an enquiry, then go retrospective, it goes to court/tribunal, the individual loses, the insurance policy pays out...

be careful. There are caveats. The main one is that they will only fight the case if they believe there is a good chance of beating HMRC. If they think they will not win a case, then they will not fight it. This is the price you have to pay for covering retrospective investigations. Normal insurance of any kind wouldn't cover you for past events.

[JohntheBike]

Well milud, I put it to you, that not only am I correct, but it is the esteemed poster, what is incorrect.

Working outside is legal. However, saying that you are outside, whilst knowing to be inside, would most likely be considered as tax evasion.

whilst knowing to be inside

they might think they were inside, but only a court could determine that correctly.

come on chaps and chapesses, when will you all understand that only a court or expert legal opinion can decide the issues. What we all post here is pure speculation and opinion.

[WTFH]

they might think they were inside, but only a court could determine that correctly.

come on chaps and chapesses, when will you all understand that only a court or expert legal opinion can decide the issues. What we all post here is pure speculation and opinion.

You're the one who starts threads based on your opinion, or the opinion of un-named sources of yours that you meet in the company canteen where you're a disguised employee.

If you want everyone else to stop posting speculation and opinion, why not show us the way by doing it yourself first.

[JohntheBike]

You're the one who starts threads based on your opinion, or the opinion of un-named sources of yours that you meet in the company canteen where you're a disguised employee.

If you want everyone else to stop posting speculation and opinion, why not show us the way by doing it yourself first.

If you want everyone else to stop posting speculation and opinion

I don't. But sometimes, as others do, a reality check doesn't go amiss.

un-named sources of yours that you meet in the company canteen

I don't use the canteen.

where you're a disguised employee.

I'm not a disguised employee and never have been. The EAT confirmed that up to the date of the judgement. Given that my MO is in essence exactly the same as it has always been, it is unlikely that HMRC would successfully challenge my position.

I've always done as much as I can and probably more than most to maintain my independent position and prepare for a challenge under IR35 from HMRC. All of my contracts have been professionally assessed and found to be not subject to IR35. I successfully warded off one challenge from HMRC myself. I'm not claiming to be comfortable or bullet proof as NLUK might like to claim that I'm claiming.

Just one example of being IR35 savvy, which Lance questions, I have never supplied my NI number to any agency. Through my solicitor I supplied a photo copy of my passport to the last agency, which they accepted as proof of my right to work in the UK.

Note that your passport doesn't contain your NI number and is a bona fide and unquestionable method for proving your right to work in the UK.