IR35 outside to inside, is there really a risk?

[cannon999]

Let me repeat my post from earlier

and if you decide to continue in April with the same contractual terms and conditions as before April but inside IR35 rather than outside IR35 I think HMRC would regard your previous agreement as a lie which would give them good reason to pierce that corporate veil.

A lie? Do you mean an incorrect determination? The two are not the same. We are talking here about a contractor has done their due dilligence and believed that they were outside. I don't understand how you think that an incorrect determination of tax status gives ground to breach the corporate veil? Perhaps you could link me some case law or legislation which supports this?

I suspect just the fact you continued working inside IR35 would be enough reason to pierce that veil.

That's just complete nonsense.

[BR14]

ok OP.
there's no risk.
it won't be a problem
everything will be fine.

there, is that what you wanted to hear?

good.

/thread

[eek]

A lie? Do you mean an incorrect determination? The two are not the same. We are talking here about a contractor has done their due dilligence and believed that they were outside. I don't understand how you think that an incorrect determination of tax status gives ground to breach the corporate veil? Perhaps you could link me some case law or legislation which supports this?



That's just complete nonsense.

We can beg to differ - I'm no longer really a contractor so I don't care but I do have experience of HMRC and it seems that those of us with actual past experience have very different attitudes to those that haven't...

[DevUK]

ok OP.
there's no risk.
it won't be a problem
everything will be fine.

there, is that what you wanted to hear?

good.

/thread

Your replies in this forum are sh1te.

If he's contending the points made it's so that the conversation's a bit more thorough. You're sarcastic and flippant, most of the time.

[cannon999]

ok OP.
there's no risk.
it won't be a problem
everything will be fine.

there, is that what you wanted to hear?

good.

/thread

No, I am genuinely curious about the actual law here. So far I can see opinion which are not backed by case law.

(my contract is outside, so this doesn't affect me before you start pointing fingers)

[ladymuck]

No, I am genuinely curious about the actual law here. So far I can see opinion which are not backed by case law.

(my contract is outside, so this doesn't affect me before you start pointing fingers)

The law hasn't been passed yet. It's all speculation until HMRC start having a look under the carpet.

[jamesbrown]

No, I am genuinely curious about the actual law here. So far I can see opinion which are not backed by case law.

(my contract is outside, so this doesn't affect me before you start pointing fingers)

Except you’re not really interested. You have an opinion, probably one related to your own special circumstances, and you’re hoping for the best. What case law did you expect for legislation that doesn’t even exist (and will be the main driver of the circumstances you describe)? If you were interested in hearing anything more than speculation, then this was a really stupid thread. We’ll see who was right in a few years, perhaps sooner.

[eek]

No, I am genuinely curious about the actual law here. So far I can see opinion which are not backed by case law.

(my contract is outside, so this doesn't affect me before you start pointing fingers)

The actual law at the moment (and that is what would be used in a tribunal) is that a hypothetical contract is created ignoring the intermediate contracts based on working practices and the parts of the contract that closely match those working practices. Given that post April the contract will be inside IR35 its very easy to argue that the hypothetical contract at all times was inside IR35 (after all nothing changed between April 3rd and April 6th) and so the outside determination prior to April 6th was incorrect (or a lie as I called it).

There is a separate issue regarding actually transferring responsibility from the limited company to the contractor personally but the contractor was a director of the closed limited company so it's not that hard as it might otherwise be especially once you've found that the hypothetical contract shows that you've always been inside IR35

[BR14]

Except you’re not really interested. You have an opinion, probably one related to your own special circumstances, and you’re hoping for the best. What case law do you expect for legislation that doesn’t even exist? If you were interested in hearing anything more than speculation, then this was a really stupid thread. We’ll see who was right in a few years, perhaps sooner.

my point exactly.

[cannon999]

Except you’re not really interested. You have an opinion, probably one related to your own special circumstances, and you’re hoping for the best. What case law did you expect for legislation that doesn’t even exist (and will be the main driver of the circumstances you describe)? If you were interested in hearing anything more than speculation, then this was a really stupid thread. We’ll see who was right in a few years, perhaps sooner.

I don't have my own special circumstances. I do however have an opinion, you got that right.