Originally posted by WordIsBond
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
IR35 outside to inside, is there really a risk?
Collapse
X
-
merely at clientco for the entertainment -
Remember there is a whole sub section on this site for those who saw QC approved schemes as being with minimal risk.
As a Director who could be held liable with a transfer of risk, how will you prove, as the burden of prof is now firmly on, you accepted the inside position and nothing has changed to your working practices but you declared it was outside previously was not a deliberate attempt at tax avoidance. - Independent contract & working practice reviews would be an absolute minimum, but judging by some comments from new posters even these basics have not been done, and they are considering outside - inside switching!
I would at least wait to see the direction of travel for APNs before even considering doing this unless the sums I would be liable for are less than six months of back tax and I had the independent evidence to support my case.Last edited by BlueSharp; 24 February 2020, 13:53.Make Mercia Great Again!Comment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostThe initial fishing letters won't be to the limited company, it's going to be to the contractor personally... Does anyone know if the GSK letters went to the contractor's companies or were they addressed to the individual..
Originally posted by Maslins View PostThe couple we've seen have been addressed to the PSC, no mention of the personal name of the director/shareholder.Comment
-
Originally posted by BlueSharp View PostAs a Director who could be held liable with a transfer of risk, how will you prove, as the burden of prof is now firmly on, you accepted the inside position and nothing has changed to your working practices but you declared it was outside previously was not a deliberate attempt at tax avoidance.
If you have that evidence, then the fact that you chose to accept the role, with it having been declared inside by the client, is certainly not proof of historical tax evasion (and yes, I used "evasion" not "avoidance", it would have to be evasion to pierce the corporate veil). It may be proof of nothing more than, out of economic necessity, having to accept an unfair working situation. It happens to people all the time.
I believe you are at very high risk of historical investigation if you accept an inside determination on a role you've been operating outside, for the reasons you've discussed. But it's one thing to say it increases the risk of losing the case -- obviously, it does. It's quite another to say you'll also be subject to transfer of liability / piercing the corporate veil. That's a very high bar and rarely attempted on anything. As far as I know, it's never been done on an IR35 case. You'd have had to have been both blatant and stupid to make yourself vulnerable to that, I suspect.Comment
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostYou'd have had to have been both blatant and stupid to make yourself vulnerable to that, I suspect.Comment
-
Originally posted by cannon999 View PostThat's pure conjecture. What you accept there is that you and the client disagree about your working practices. HMRC could come in, investigate and swing one way or the other but they can't use this disagreement as the basis to pierce the corporate veil unless there was obvious negligence going on. That obvious negligence is what would have to be proven in court even if the contractor is found to be inside IR35.
If it's inside, then something must have changed within WP or contract since QDOS determined you to be outside;
If it's outside, then take this to your client and explain your case. You are carrying out due dilligence and HMRC have stated on their website that they'll stand by the CEST tool result. Not sure where you go if the client don't accept that - IANAL.The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't existComment
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostIf you don't have sufficient evidence to prove you honestly thought it was outside, you shouldn't have been declaring it outside in the first place.
If you have that evidence, then the fact that you chose to accept the role, with it having been declared inside by the client, is certainly not proof of historical tax evasion (and yes, I used "evasion" not "avoidance", it would have to be evasion to pierce the corporate veil). It may be proof of nothing more than, out of economic necessity, having to accept an unfair working situation. It happens to people all the time.
I believe you are at very high risk of historical investigation if you accept an inside determination on a role you've been operating outside, for the reasons you've discussed. But it's one thing to say it increases the risk of losing the case -- obviously, it does. It's quite another to say you'll also be subject to transfer of liability / piercing the corporate veil. That's a very high bar and rarely attempted on anything. As far as I know, it's never been done on an IR35 case. You'd have had to have been both blatant and stupid to make yourself vulnerable to that, I suspect.Comment
-
Originally posted by cannon999 View PostThat is exactly it. The outside/inside situation can be debated and you could win or lose the case but if you believed that you were outside before and acted in good faith - I see no chance of HMRC coming close to lifting the corporate veil. There would have to be some evidence of tax fraud to do that. Disagreeing with your client about working practices is not tax fraud.
what happens then?merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostBut if you tax return shows you outside, HMRC feel you are inside and the limited company no longer exists?
what happens then?
Given the fact HMRC want everyone to go PAYE, then I see no logic in why they would go after anyone closing a limited company down. They have gotten what they want, and unless you have done something extremely foolish, then why scare people, especially when they have stated explically that they won’t.
Personally, I decided to not stay at the same client as an Umbrella employee, but most decided they would. I did it because I had been there a long time and I thought the even smallest chance of being investigated as an out to in, simply
wasn’t worth it.
Oh..also, there’s going to be a massive number of companies going through MVL and liquidation at the moment. If HMRC go after any of them, it will then be time to sweat.Last edited by BABABlackSheep; 25 February 2020, 07:58.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment