IR35 in the Private Sector
IR35 is an anti-avoidance tax that has been around since the turn of the century. It’s objective is to prevent individuals that would otherwise be an employee from engaging via a limited company and receiving the tax benefits associated with being in business. Since its introduction, IR35 has caused controversy with those in the supply chain (contractors, agencies and end-clients) and policy-makers: the former finding the rules confusing and the latter believing it to be ineffective; change has therefore been long overdue.
In April 2017, reforms to the way in which IR35 status is determined for contractors working in the public sector took effect. This put the determination of IR35 status into the hands of the end-client rather than the contractor, as it had been since 2000. Since then, there has been speculation in the contracting community about extending the same changes into the private sector; this was confirmed by the Chancellor in the 2018 Autumn Budget and is scheduled to happen in April 2020.
The definition of IR35 itself, or indeed the precedents that characterise an individual’s employment status, have not changed with this announcement – this continues to rest on 50-year-old case law – Ready Mixed Concrete (1968). Therefore, logically, if IR35 has been operated correctly by the contractor in the past; and the legislation is operated correctly by agencies and end clients in the future; then only those that are already caught by IR35 will be caught in the future. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all the information that is given to us is perfect, where legislation is interpreted as it was written or applied as intended – the reality could therefore be very different from this.
In the public sector, there was wide scale mis-understanding about the IR35 reforms perpetuated by a lack of information from HMRC, a Check Employment Status Tool (CEST) that was not fit for purpose and self-interested advisers using scaremongering tactics to promote alternative models. This led to blanket IR35 decisions across groups of contractors with no consideration given to circumstances of the individual engagements. Although HMRC deny this, from speaking to contractors involved in these projects at the time, the changes had ramifications on the delivery of public sector projects, ultimately at increased cost to the taxpayer.
The requirement for the skill-sets and flexibility offered by contractors does not change with the introduction of this, or any, legislation; demand for contractors will continue post-2020. What this legislation does, is shift risk up the supply chain to end-clients, putting the IR35 status of contractors in the hands of the end-client, whose risk appetite will determine how contractors are engaged in the future.
End-clients that are unwilling to accept the risk of engaging with contractors outside of IR35 will have to place them inside IR35 and quite possibly pay a premium to compensate for the tax loss to the contractor. Those end-clients and agencies that take time to understand the legislation are the ones that are most likely to be able to plan for it and ensure their contracts are firmly outside IR35. It stands to reason that contractors with niche skill-sets (high demand, low supply) will be in a better negotiating position when it comes to rates/contractual terms.
The government has pledged extensive support and guidance to assist end-clients to implement the reforms and to work with stakeholders to improve the controversial CEST tool. A further consultation on the detailed operation of the reforms will be published, which will, in turn, inform the finance bill in Summer 2019.
It is hard to see that the reforms announced in the budget will not mandate change in the contracting market, what that will look like post-2020, for the moment, is anybody’s guess.
Technical Solutions Engineer at Thales
5 年Good article Craig. One thing worth commenting on, in terms of the public sector initiative to pass the decision to end clients is that, in my case, and every other case I've come in contact with, when driven inside IR35 by blanket assessments, far from transferring the risk and cost to the end client, they continue to retain the flexibility that contractors provide, leaving all risk on the contractor, and they force the contractor to bear the additional costs, specifically they push the payment of employer's NIC on to the contractor. I am advised this a breach of contract and quite possibly illegal, but which individual contractor has a strong enough position to successfully challenge this without risking loss of contract and workload? Yes, they most definitely will cut off their nose to spite their face by losing the specialist skills, because it is administered by HR departments who are oblivious to that issue, despite the protests of their managers who are heavily impacted by those skill losses. When end clients are able to pass this cost, which should be their liability, on to the contractor, where is the incentive for them to undertake a valid assessment? There isn't, hence flawed blanket assessments are rife.
DevSecOps Consultant (Outside/Remote Only)
6 年Thanks Craig. A really nice digest of the IR35 situation.