Outside contract (With CEST), to Umbrella - how exposed? Outside contract (With CEST), to Umbrella - how exposed?
Posts 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    3,281

    Default Outside contract (With CEST), to Umbrella - how exposed?

    I've got a potential client with an outside role. It's both outside in real terms, and on the basis of CEST - organisationally, they have concluded it's outside and I'm quite happy that its the truth.

    What I'm conscious of is the risk of hitting April and them blanket banning Ltd Co contractors. It (obviously) hasn't happened yet, but it's a possibility and I'm trying to work out my risk exposure. To be clear, I am not talking about a re-decision that the role falls inside, but an overall decision not to engage with Ltd Co contractors.

    If that does happen, and I was to go brolly, how exposed would I be?

    There seems to be a presumption on the forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, but ultimately Brolly != Inside, Brolly is simply out of scope. It doesn't seem to me that it could form any evidence in of itself.

    I appreciate they could investigate the few months prior, but 1) It's only a few months 2) My CEST and working practices should show outside. But maybe I'm totally off basis and should just write the cheque now
    Last edited by vwdan; 25th November 2020 at 09:47.

  2. #2

    More fingers than teeth

    ladymuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,216

    Default

    Keep all the evidence and the client's agreement that the role is outside. If they then change that in April, you'll want evidence as to how the role has changed such that it's become inside. I'd want a new contract at that point.

    I think I saw that HMRC are going to be more focussed on ensuring the clients are being compliant rather than picking on the contractor but we know how trustworthy they can be.

    Ah - you've edited!
    If the client states they no longer want to engage with Ltd Co contractors, then get that in writing and keep it as evidence of your decision to use a different vehicle in order to be able to deliver the services they want.
    Last edited by ladymuck; 25th November 2020 at 09:52.

  3. #3

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vwdan View Post
    I've got a potential client with an outside role. It's both outside in real terms, and on the basis of CEST - organisationally, they have concluded it's outside and I'm quite happy that its the truth.

    What I'm conscious of is the risk of hitting April and them blanket banning Ltd Co contractors. It (obviously) hasn't happened yet, but it's a possibility and I'm trying to work out my risk exposure. To be clear, I am not talking about a re-decision that the role falls inside, but an overall decision not to engage with Ltd Co contractors.

    If that does happen, and I was to go brolly, how exposed would I be?

    There seems to be a presumption on the forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, but ultimately Brolly != Inside, Brolly is simply out of scope. It doesn't seem to me that it could form any evidence in of itself.


    I appreciate they could investigate the few months prior, but 1) It's only a few months 2) My CEST and working practices should show outside. But maybe I'm totally off basis and should just write the cheque now
    There is a presumption from SOME on this forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, even if that is ONLY due to the client banning PSCs. I do not share that belief and I've seen no convincing argument why that will be the case.

    If this is a contract you want to take, I'd do so, and not let any potential client decision next April to disengage with PSCs change that.

  4. #4

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    27,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paralytic View Post
    There is a presumption from SOME on this forum that moving to Brolly puts a huge target on your back, even if that is ONLY due to the client banning PSCs. I do not share that belief and I've seen no convincing argument why that will be the case.

    If this is a contract you want to take, I'd do so, and not let any potential client decision next April to disengage with PSCs change that.
    No there is a presumption that it is a very easy database query to run within HMRC's big dataset were HMRC to need extra money and decide to operate a shake the tree approach as they did with Glaxo...

    I would just keep evidence it was outside and keep the documentation that referenced a blanket ban were one to be implemented.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  5. #5

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    3,281

    Default

    Cheers guys - think we're all on the same page. It's a potentially really interesting role, and the IR35 side is gonna be the same with any outside role right now so "Keep invoicing" I think!

  6. #6

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    20,965

    Default

    I have always posted this as awareness not advice.

    If you don't think there's a risk, just keep your evidence as everyone says and take the contract.
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •