Originally posted by BlasterBates
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!
Blanket IR35 Determination / "HR Policy Against PSC's"
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostNope. There is a mandated client-led status disagreement process and a client will need to defend any proceedings against them. For example, if they don’t respond within 45 days, they become the de facto Fee Payer. The risks are not symmetric, obviously, but the only risk free option is to mandate no PSCs and that is what they will do (the sensible ones that want to avoid any risk). If taxes are withheld wrongly, the client may be liable to refund them, but they may not have them fully refunded by HMRC.
I cannot see IPSE spaffing the money to sue a client either.See You Next TuesdayComment
-
Originally posted by Lance View Postthe thing is, how many contractors can afford to have that fight?
I cannot see IPSE spaffing the money to sue a client either.Comment
-
So my question was is anyone else in this situation and what are people actually doing.. The answers are mostly all whether semantics around the wording are right / what is legal or lawful..
In the same way the tax loophole exploited by the loan charge scheme wasn't in the "spirit" of the legislation, I feel the banning contractors via an HR policy is also not in the spirit of the new proposed legislation and eventually, a lot of these big corps will have their wrists slapped. The intention from HMRC is to get individual status assessments done, and get people working in a manner they see is fair. (whether how they see it is right or not, is another matter)
I'll speak to my accountant. I have to weigh up whether NIC's and other back tax 9 months of my day rate is worth risking for another few months of a slightly reduced rate to close out my project.Comment
-
Not at all. The intention is to increase tax take. HMRC have no objections whatsoever to a change in company policy that achieves that. It’s called the intermediaries legislation for a reason. It applies to intermediaries.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mattfx View PostSo my question was is anyone else in this situation and what are people actually doing.. The answers are mostly all whether semantics around the wording are right / what is legal or lawful..
The general discussion here has been that staying with a client when you were previously self-determining outside of IR35 and will then be at the same client who has disengaged with PSCs (but not making IR35 determinations), then the additional risk is of HMRC linking the two together. That could introduce a (slight?) increased risk of being investigated for the outside IR35 period of your contract. That does not, in itself, make it more likely that that period of time will be found to have been inside.Last edited by Paralytic; 26 November 2020, 11:50.Comment
-
Originally posted by mattfx View PostI've said there's no way I'm going inside especially without additional remuneration.'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Originally posted by Paralytic View PostThe general discussion here has been that staying with a client when you were previously self-determining outside of IR35 and will then be at the same client who has disengaged with PSCs (but not making IR35 determinations), then the additional risk is of HMRC linking the two together. That could introduce a (slight?) increased risk of being investigated for the outside IR35 period of your contract. That does not, in itself, make it more likely that that period of time will be found to have been inside.
+ I have doubts the change will be on in April. If the shait keeps hitting the fan with covid and all.
In effect banning the PSCs is better for you that being assessed inside.
Name the client if you want. Is is BP?Comment
-
Originally posted by jamesbrown View PostWhy would a client risk it when they don’t need to? The SDS and the status disagreement process is an inviolable admin cost, regardless of any subsequent proceedings and regardless of outcome. That is the minimum cost to the client. The maximum is rather more.
I think we're agreeing in a roundabout fashionSee You Next TuesdayComment
- 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