Originally posted by daydream
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!
Asked to pay for IR35 Assesment
Collapse
X
-
merely at clientco for the entertainment -
Originally posted by eek View PostI actually would be interested in QDOS's viewpoint on this - I cannot see them being happy being paid by an interested (and biased) party that isn't the one directly responsible for the determination or the consequences of that determination.
We feel it is vital to include the contractor in the process to enable us to cover all nuances and factors that are specific to each PSC, however the ultimate responsibility still lies with the client.
When it comes to the payment of those assessments - we found that allowing the client to require the fees paid by the contractor encouraged more (particularly those on the fence with PSC bans) to take a fair and compliant approach to their assessments as opposed to using the likes of CEST or banning contractors altogether. However this is entirely a commercial or policy decision on the part of the client. In some cases these fees will be borne by the contractor and in others it is borne by the client or even the fee-payer. There is no bearing on status for who pays the fee however.
We do appreciate that for some, particularly those who have used our services directly in the past, this will feel like doubling up - but it is important to remember that we are dealing with two different sets of rules and responsibilities here at the same time.Qdos Contractor - IR35 expertsComment
-
Originally posted by Qdos Contractor View PostThe IR35 Contract Assessments we have offered and continue to offer free to policyholders and the paid-for services we provide are separate from the off-payroll assessments we make on behalf of clients. Whilst the basis of making the assessments remains the same in terms of case law and so on, the off-payroll assessments require an extra level of management and involvement from the client in the process. The client has the responsibility for verifying the accuracy of any assessment and ultimately making the determination, but a rounded and inclusive basis for the decision is important.
We feel it is vital to include the contractor in the process to enable us to cover all nuances and factors that are specific to each PSC, however the ultimate responsibility still lies with the client.
When it comes to the payment of those assessments - we found that allowing the client to require the fees paid by the contractor encouraged more (particularly those on the fence with PSC bans) to take a fair and compliant approach to their assessments as opposed to using the likes of CEST or banning contractors altogether. However this is entirely a commercial or policy decision on the part of the client. In some cases these fees will be borne by the contractor and in others it is borne by the client or even the fee-payer. There is no bearing on status for who pays the fee however.
We do appreciate that for some, particularly those who have used our services directly in the past, this will feel like doubling up - but it is important to remember that we are dealing with two different sets of rules and responsibilities here at the same time.
But passing the request down to the contractor him/herself just feels wrong - after all when he/she makes the decision to pay the bill for the assessment who is making the decision - is it the contractor as the director of the PSC that would be used if the contract is outside or the contractor himself (which it would be if the contract is inside and the money is deducted from his first wage packet).
Until now that decision wasn't an issue because it was always the PSC paying for the check to protect itself from a claim but I can see an issue come April. What justification would a PSC have to pay for that compliance check and how can you bill someone when you don't know if the person paying for the check will be the PSC (assuming it's outside IR35) or the contractor (were it inside).
Would you care to comment as to me that looks like a problem requiring either a payment from the worker either before the work commences (problem in law) or a deduction from the first pay pocket (which means two key information document from the umbrella company or a risk of illegal deductions).Last edited by eek; 10 December 2020, 17:08.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
- 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