TedofChume
Well-Known Member
With IR35 it’s more complicated than that. The contractor needs to be able to dictate pretty much everything about the way the job is performed. How, where and when. Big nose (and the others getting caught) was told ‘where’ to work and ‘when’ to work on too many occasions, so it became routine and triggered the investigation. The onus on complying with IR35 used to be on the contractor for a long time but moved to the payer a few years back, but you have always been able to get contracts reviewed and tested and insurance against HMRC investigations and fines, these greedy buggers probably chose to save the money instead. I haven’t worked outside IR35 for 4 years but still pay for insurance just in case. Think after 6 years I can cancei
I think you misunderstood the point I was making. If you're a genuine contractor you're running a real business, and the two criteria I mentioned are easy to satisfy and all you need to prove it.
IR35 was brought in mainly because IT Contractors on long term contracts were really temporary employees and therefore not paying tax properly. It was a fudge to allow them and similar white collar "contractors" to continue dodging tax, mainly employees NI *, paying themselves in dividends and claiming expenses for their "business" reducing their tax liability. It's beneficial for employers as they dodge employment law, employers NI etc. .
*They usually pay themselves the minimum to qualify for a full state pension.
It's simply not right that an employee on £100 a day is paying more tax than the contractor sat next to him doing a similar job on £300 a day
I've got no sympathy with anyone or any employer getting done under IR35 because they're engaging in tax avoidance. They're no different to non-Doms or those using tax havens.
Anyhow that's my political rant over and off topic. This is supposed to be about City.