Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

The IR35 Lottery: Part 2

by
1st Mar 2008
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

It would appear that my previous article made a good bed time read - although not as popular as Harry Potter, it is pleasing to know that I appear to have a fan base; something that I didn’t achieve with the outside profession when I was previously in the employ of HM Revenue and Customs as a Status Inspector…

From experience, I prefer to tackle the subject of IR35 with the following points in mind in order to avoid the pitfalls and mitigate risk. I appreciate that others may not necessarily agree or indeed may prefer a different approach. What matters is getting it right for the client.

Prepare for the worst – hope for the best.
The best defence is not to be attacked in the first place!

Lower the profile
Don’t make your client an easy touch. IR35 was introduced as anti-avoidance legislation. HMRC will have an eye on monetary yield. HMRC target companies where the worker insists on paying a minimal salary and maximum dividends. If a more modest stance is taken, then the amounts at stake are reduced and so is the risk.

Establish the position at the outset.
It is essential to collect and collate all the relevant evidence. It is no good relying on a one-size-fits-all contract with an over reliance on a substitution clause. A holistic approach is required.

You need to apply what I call the “smell test” to the contract. If it does not obviously reflect reality, then beware. The recent commissioner’s cases show that it is the actual day to day working practices that take precedence – the usual things, right of control, personal service, exposure to commercial losses, investment in equipment etc. I’ve seen numerous contracts that say the right thing, but fall apart under closer examination. I strongly urge you look closely at these areas, and if there are any doubts, you need to seek specialist advice. If the written terms of the contract do not reflect reality, then it may be unwise to depend on it being “IR35 Proof” as I’ve heard all too often.

One way to get clarification (if you are able) is to put the question in the right terms to the right person at the end-client. It my not be sufficient just to talk to the immediate line-manager – who may not care or even know what his employer would allow. On the other hand – find out if local arrangements may have been put in place – even if it goes against company policy. Does the line manager actually operate in a different manner? If so, this becomes a relevant part of the arrangements under which the services are provided; whether the end client likes it or not. It's the reality of the arrangements that count in the end when constructing the notional contract.

But if the workers know that they have been personally selected to work for a set period, to assist on a large project, as part of a team working in a managed operation, using end-client equipment-yet nevertheless decides to chance it, they are likely to have an issue. On more than one occasion it was admitted to me in my former role as a Status Inspector, ' I knew I was caught, but waited to see if you would challenge me.' Perhaps many advisors and PSC’s think it is a risk worth taking.

Worker in business.
I recall one case where the end-client had assured me that all work was done on site using their computers, but the reality was he operated from home much of the time with his network of computers using a program costing £10K which he had purchased. The specific facts are important and the HR manager will probably not know all this. The worker looked much less like an employee because of his investment and his choice of working place.

Multiple clients
What if the contract HMRC want to hit for IR35 is merely one in a chain of contracts for different clients? If there are concurrent contracts, or a large number of clients, or a long history of working across the sector, then it is easier to argue that the contract in question is but one in a diverse portfolio of operations. If the company was set up purely to service a succession of contracts with one end-client, then HMRC will tend to smell a rat. Diversity of operations always helps to dispel the 'hidden employment' argument. See Example 1 below.

Revenue disclosure.
If the worst happens……

HMRC have unrivalled powers to obtain information from end-clients and they should be requested to share this at an early stage in the interests of all concerned. It is virtually impossible for workers to obtain the upper level contract, but IR35 may hinge on this document and how the end-client puts it into practice. All too often, it has only been well into an investigation that all the documents are declared by HMRC – which is most unsatisfactory. They must be more transparent about the evidence they hold. If end-clients have agreed a generic statement of arrangements with HMRC, then this should be openly available to the agency and the workers at the outset.

Witness credibility.
If there is an investigation and the case is to be heard, HMRC should be reminded that in the Datagate and the First Word Software cases, the Commissioners considered that a distant HR manager was too remote from the actual workplace to know what was actually happening.

If calling witnesses from the end-client, advisers need to explain to them what is likely to be asked and what are the implications resulting from what they say.

The credibility of the worker's evidence should not be under-estimated. After all, the worker knows the context better than anyone - and how it worked from day to day.

Specialist help.
Get help immediately from people who specialise in status and IR35 all the time - especially if HMRC come knocking – but better still – share the facts with a good adviser from the beginning.

Some examples to think about.
As I said, I was a Status/IR35 Inspector in a former life. I had to give many opinions on hundreds of IR35 cases. These are typical of the sort of investigations undertaken. Names and details have been changed to avoid any possible identification.

Example 1

Mr P worked mainly for a government department via P Ltd. The work was under terms and conditions that made it seem certain that IR35 applied. It took a long time, and the use of Section 20, before the worker produced the lower level contracts. However, these revealed that the government job was only part-time and other work was done for other clients. At one time there were 3 concurrent contracts, and over a 10 month period work was done for 5 end-clients apart from the government department.

I decided that the diversity of contracts meant that a tribunal would probably decide that each contract would be viewed as only one in the overall trade of P Ltd, and therefore that IR35 would not be applied to any specific contract.

Another Inspector might well have taken another view. This boils down to ‘know thy enemy.’ IR35 legislation allows the Inspector to argue that each contract stands on its own. Could IR35 have been applied to the government contract – even if the rest were not caught?

Defence: Not needed. This is a realistic outcome. However the agent acting did not realize the strength of the cards he was holding and he could have stalled the investigation much earlier by showing his hand. Did the client benefit from the delay?

Example 2

Mr P set up his company to develop software for a new computer game. He engaged staff and ran up a large overdraft with the bank. The bank became anxious about repayments as the development was likely to take over two years and they asked Mr P to consider raising some money to make repayments. He started to sell his own computer skills through his company to an end-client under arrangements that were obviously caught by IR35.

The argument I advanced on behalf of HMRC was that the PSC had two distinct trades, which had no connection. The income from the end-client was caught and the fact that the company had other activities was too remote for it to be said that the consultancy work and the software development were part of the same trade.

Mr P disagreed. He was incurring legitimate employment expenses and capital allowances, and his PSC was able to pay pension contributions. Was there was insufficient liability in it to be worth the fight? It’s important to calculate how much PAYE/NI is at stake after CT relief and SA repayment.

Defence: This situation has not been tested at SpC’s or High Court (yet). Will the Inspector be backed by the technical bods? Will HMRC be keen to take a case to tribunal to test this point, when the defence will be, “Just one client, m’lord. Just one part of my trade.”

My advice now would be to challenge HMRC. Their interpretation is too narrow within the context of the overall aims of the company’s activities.

I hope you have found the two articles of interest, or conversely that they helped you go to sleep. Anyone taking good advice will significantly increase their chances of winning the IR35 lottery.

Steve Gretton now heads up employment status and IR35 services for Inspired Employer Solutions Limited which specialises in providing planning, advisory and support services in PAYE, NI, employment benefits, expenses, status cases, IR35, investigations and the Construction Industry Scheme." He can be contacted on 01793 611173 or [email protected]

Tags:

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By IANTO
08th Apr 2008 14:32

HMRC incompetence
Brett - good for you. It's more of this type of expose that we all should be engaging in. Look at how the MP's have concealed their expense accounts until the recent BBC investigation. If more of us became "whistle blowers" in all walks of life, those in official positions would be more careful about their conduct.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By shgstatus
08th Apr 2008 14:28

IR35 Lottery results
Hi Bret

I have read what you say with interest. I am pleased for you that you won your case.

As I was involved with the case before I left HMR&C you will appreciate that my hands are tied by the confidentiality rules they impose, so unfortunately I can't discuss specific details as much as I would like to.

However, based upon the facts that are in the public domain, clearly both you and HMR&C believed their case was right. It appears that an impasse occurred and to settle the matter the case needed to be referred to an independent tribunal and on the day, you were successful in persuading the Commissioners to find in your favour.

Of course it is always better to ensure that you do not get picked up for review in the first place and that is what I am working on with Inspired Employer Solutions Ltd these days.

I do not think this forum is the place for personal comments, but if you would like to talk about the issues raised further, then please do not hesitate to contact me.
([email protected]).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
07th Apr 2008 17:28

HMRC incompetence
I am Bret Barnett of Datagate Services which you mention in part 1 of your article.

Quote: "HMRC target companies where the worker insists on paying a minimal salary and maximum dividends. If a more modest stance is taken, then the amounts at stake are reduced and so is the risk". This is true, yet is only half the story - the more money that is at stake, the more it becomes feasible for an uninsured "contractor" to employ professional help. Indeed in my case, I was not covered by insurance, but because I continued to work for the same end client during the five or so years of HMRC investigation prior to the hearing, the sum of money at stake became so large that it became feasible for me to employ representation.

In your first article regarding contradictory evidence you state that "HMRC called a former senior HR manager, but she was perceived as talking in generalities". As you have stated, you were personally responsible for the investigation of Datagate Services in your previous role as Bristol Area Status Inspector at HMRC. In 2004 (several years prior to the Special Commissioners hearing), I wrote to you personally on several occasions to inform you that the evidence from HR was incorrect. I specifically requested that you write to the end client to resolve this and other anomalies, yet you refused. You were also made aware that when a previous case at the Special Commissioners had been faced with contradictory evidence, far greater weight was given to that of the relevant Team Leader who was directly aware of the actual working practices. Despite all of this you decided to continue with the case, resulting ultimately in a significant waste of taxpayers money.

I am sure that the free publicity gained via this article for your new venture at "inspiredemployer.co.uk" will be of use, but for the sake of your clients I can only hope that you are more competent in your new role than you were whilst at HMRC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Geoff Heron
06th Mar 2008 14:25

IR35 Investigations
John,

Unfortunately Steve is away from the office until next week and does not have access to a computer. I’ve spoken with him regarding your posting and he’s asked me to reply as follows.

During my previous life as a Status Inspector, there was no particular agenda to target the IT Industry. Any case regardless of sector that appeared to fall within IR35 was and I understand, continues to be targeted.

The reason why many feel the IT sector has borne the brunt is due in my opinion to fact that many of these particular people were able to organise themselves. With the help of professional advice and the gathering of a fighting fund, they were able to challenge the HMR&C position. The result being, if agreement could not be reached, then the only way HMR&C were able to establish whether their stance was correct or not, was to firstly take the case before the Commissioners and hence the high public profile.

There were many cases in other industry sectors where the people affected could not/did not organise themselves and in these cases the PSC either won or lost dependant upon the case presented – however none of these cases ever reached the public domain.

I in my previous life, I successfully argued and settled (with many of the recognised advisers) on IR35 cases outside of the IT sector - these cases however are never publicised.

The articles which I have prepared are not intended to cover the rights and wrongs of IR35 (of which in my opinion there are many). Instead they have been written to provide readers with an insight into the complex subject matter, particularly following the recent Sp Cases.

I could cover much more on this subject matter; however as you will appreciate, there are only so many hours in a day.

Steve

Thanks (0)
avatar
By IANTO
06th Mar 2008 08:20

IR35 investigations
Steve, it has been my contention for some years that IR35 (and the MSC regulations and proposed "family business tax" regulations) are targetted solely at IT professionals, in much the same way that the building industry has been targetted by the CIS scheme.

Dawn Primarolo claimed that there were no statistics available to show who had been investigated and how much money had been raised under IR35. So what are your observations?

Has the majority of investigations in your experience been targetted at IT professionals? or can you give examples where non IT businesses have been targetted and found to be caught?

If my memory serves me correctly, all the case law has been regarding IT businesses. It will be interesting to hear your observations.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sjmaccounting
04th Mar 2008 21:20

Thanks Steve
Steve, please acept my thanks for sharing your experince/insight with us.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By shgstatus
04th Mar 2008 13:21

Is insurance the answer?
Neil
Have just returned to the office (another IR35 client meeting), and I take on board your comments and empathise with your viewpoint.
However, I would like to make one thing perfectly clear; where clients contacts are obviously outside IR35, a minimal salary and dividends is quite rightly an option – naturally after considering the clients individual needs and objectives. Given that I am relatively new to this side of the fence, if we are confident the client is outside IR35 why the need to sell IR35 insurance?
I believe each IR35 client is different and should be treated as such. I believe the purpose as advisers is to look out for their best individual interests.
As my article mentioned, I have seen cases which are “grey”, but all too often many seek to rely on a “one size fits all” contract – these are the cases where there may be an IR35 challenge, particularly in light of the Dragonfly case where the Commissioner relied on the words of the end client as opposed to the terms of the written contract. It is in this area we need to look after our client’s best interest.
From experience, I believe that it is better to avoid an inspection by being off the main IR35 radar than to sell an insurance policy to the client on the basis that if they get caught the insurance will cover it. Whilst the insurance is likely to cover the financial cost (especially the professional fees!) and may even cover the tax and National Insurance, will it cover the interest and penalties?
Unfortunately, insurance will never cover the time, inconvenience, disruption or worry costs to the client and this is often overlooked. There are situations where insurance is in the best interest of the client – to mitigate potential future costs. However, going forward, as a result of Dragonfly it may be that insurance providers are likely to be much more careful about the IR35 cover they provide.
Steve

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NeilW
03rd Mar 2008 15:11

An astonishing position
HMRC target companies where the worker insists on paying a minimal salary and maximum dividends. If a more modest stance is taken, then the amounts at stake are reduced and so is the risk.

I find that an astonishing position. "Increase the amount of tax you pay and HMRC will leave you alone". How much buys you peace of mind? £1000 extra tax, £2000, £10,000?

Surely a more appropriate response is to use the commercial facility that has been in place for centuries - insurance. Have your contract looked at by the appropriate insurance brokers and shift the tax risk to them, which should cost less than a £1000 for absolute certainty.

Every accountant dealing with IR35 clients should be offering them insurance. It's the only way to get certainty.

NeilW

Thanks (0)