Skill: jamespatrickthom2003-star/ir35-assessment (version 1.0.0)

--- name: ir35-assessment description: Assess IR35 employment status for UK contractors using HMRC criteria and case law factors. Generates risk ratings, recommended contract amendments, and Status Determination Statements. Use when a contractor needs to check their IR35 status, a business needs to make a determination, or someone wants to understand employment status. user-invocable: true argument-hint: "[contract details and working practices] or describe your engagement" --- # IR35 Status Assessment You assess whether a contractor engagement falls inside or outside IR35 using the established employment status tests from UK case law and HMRC guidance. You apply the actual legal framework — not simplified checklists — to produce a structured risk assessment with evidence-based ratings. **IMPORTANT:** You are a risk assessment tool, not a tax tribunal. Always include the disclaimer. Always recommend professional advice for borderline cases. --- ## The Legal Framework IR35 refers to the Intermediaries Legislation, now codified in Chapter 8 (personal service companies) and Chapter 10 (off-payroll working rules) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003). The core question: if the intermediary (PSC) were removed from the chain, would the remaining relationship between the contractor and the end client be one of employment or self-employment? ### The Three Key Tests From **Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497**, a contract of service (employment) exists when three conditions are met simultaneously: #### 1. Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) Is there an obligation on the client to provide work AND an obligation on the contractor to accept it? | Inside IR35 (employee-like) | Outside IR35 (business-like) | |---|---| | Client must offer work continuously | No obligation to offer further work after current project | | Contractor must accept offered work | Contractor can decline assignments without consequence | | Ongoing retainer or rolling contract | Defined project with clear end date | | Paid during quiet periods or bench time | No pay when no work is delivered | | Notice period to terminate the engagement | Either party can walk away at project end | | Expectation of continued engagement | Each engagement is genuinely separate | **Key case law on MOO:** - **Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47** — casual workers with no obligation to accept shifts were not employees - **HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 501** — the Court of Appeal held that MOO must be assessed at the level of each individual engagement, not the overall relationship - **Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612** — an irreducible minimum of mutual obligation is required for employment #### 2. Control Does the end client control WHAT you do, HOW you do it, WHEN you do it, and WHERE you do it? | Inside IR35 (employee-like) | Outside IR35 (business-like) | |---|---| | Client dictates working hours | Contractor sets own schedule | | Client specifies methods and processes | Contractor decides how to deliver | | Client directs day-to-day tasks | Contractor manages own workload | | Client determines work location | Contractor chooses where to work | | Line-managed or supervised | Self-directed, delivers outcomes | | Must attend mandatory meetings | Attends only where project requires | | Performance managed (appraisals, 1-to-1s) | Judged on deliverables, not conduct | | Must follow client's internal procedures | Follows own professional methods | **Key case law on control:** - **Ready Mixed Concrete [1968]** — control over the manner of doing the work is a hallmark of employment - **Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 166 (TCC)** — the Upper Tribunal examined control factors in detail, finding that referees were controlled as to what, when, and where - **Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173** — the right of control is more important than whether it is actually exercised **Important nuance:** A client specifying WHAT deliverables are required does not on its own indicate control. The critical question is whether the client controls HOW the work is done. A contractor engaged to build a specific system who decides their own methods, tools, and approach is not controlled merely because the output is specified. #### 3. Personal Service / Substitution Can you send a qualified substitute to do the work in your place? | Inside IR35 (employee-like) | Outside IR35 (business-like) | |---|---| | Must perform work personally | Genuine, unfettered right to send a substitute | | Substitution clause exists but never exercised | Substitution has been exercised in practice | | Client can veto any substitute | Contractor can send any suitably qualified person | | Substitute must come from client's pool | Contractor sources and pays the substitute directly | | No real commercial reality to substitution | Contractor bears the cost of the substitute | **Key case law on substitution:** - **Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29** — the Supreme Court held that a contractual right of substitution must be genuine, not merely theoretical. A clause permitting substitution only from the client's pool of operatives was insufficient. - **Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41** — the Supreme Court confirmed that tribunals must look at the substance of the arrangement, not just the contractual terms. Written substitution clauses that do not reflect reality will be disregarded. - **Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak [2008] EWCA Civ 430** — a substitution clause that was a sham or had never been used was given no weight --- ## Detailed Assessment Factors Beyond the three key tests, tribunals and HMRC consider the following secondary factors. No single factor is determinative — it is the overall picture that matters (**Hall v Lorimer [1994] 1 WLR 209**). ### Financial Risk | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | Paid a fixed rate regardless of outcome | Bears financial risk if project overruns | | No obligation to rectify defects at own cost | Must fix defective work at own expense | | No investment in the business | Invests in own equipment, training, insurance | | Expenses reimbursed by client | Bears own business expenses | | No risk of bad debt | Invoices and bears credit risk | ### Part and Parcel of the Organisation | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | Listed on internal org charts | No presence in client's structure | | Has client email address and job title | Uses own email and business identity | | Attends team meetings, socials, all-hands | Attends only where project requires | | Uses client's systems for HR, leave booking | Manages own admin independently | | Inducted as if a new employee | Minimal onboarding, project-focused | | Subject to client's disciplinary procedures | Not subject to client's internal processes | ### Exclusivity and Multiple Clients | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | Works solely for one client | Multiple concurrent clients | | Contractually restricted from other work | Free to take on other engagements | | De facto exclusive even if not contractual | Demonstrably works for others | ### Equipment and Tools | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | Uses client's laptop, software, office | Provides own equipment | | All tools supplied by client | Licences own software and tools | | Works exclusively from client's premises | Has own office or workspace | ### Employee-Type Benefits | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | Receives holiday pay, sick pay, pension | No employee benefits | | Included in bonus schemes | No participation in incentive schemes | | Training provided by client | Self-funds professional development | | Access to staff perks and facilities | No access to employee benefits | ### Payment Structure | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | Regular salary-like payments (monthly, same amount) | Invoice-based, varying amounts | | Paid for time spent | Paid for deliverables or milestones | | Timesheets without invoicing | Issues formal VAT invoices | | Payment processed through payroll-like system | Payment processed as supplier invoice | ### Business Presence and Intention | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 | |---|---| | No business identity beyond PSC | Own website, marketing, public profile | | PSC exists solely for tax purposes | PSC has genuine commercial substance | | No business development activity | Actively markets services to multiple clients | | Contract looks like employment dressed up | Contract reflects genuine business-to-business relationship | --- ## Key Case Law Reference Cite these where they are relevant to the specific factors being assessed: | Case | Year | Key Principle | |---|---|---| | Ready Mixed Concrete v MPNI | [1968] 2 QB 497 | The three-part test for employment: mutuality, control, personal service | | Market Investigations v MSS | [1969] 2 QB 173 | "Is the person in business on their own account?" — the economic reality test | | Hall v Lorimer | [1994] 1 WLR 209 | No single factor is determinative — paint a picture from all the factors | | Carmichael v National Power | [1999] UKHL 47 | Casual engagement with no obligation to accept work = no MOO | | Autoclenz v Belcher | [2011] UKSC 41 | Substance over form — written terms that do not reflect reality are disregarded | | Pimlico Plumbers v Smith | [2018] UKSC 29 | Substitution clause scrutiny — must be genuine and unfettered | | HMRC v Atholl House Productions | [2022] EWCA Civ 501 | MOO and control must be assessed per engagement; mutuality at the engagement level | | Professional Game Match Officials v HMRC | [2024] UKUT 166 (TCC) | Detailed analysis of control factors in practice | | Kickabout Productions v HMRC | [2022] UKFTT 408 (TC) | Media sector IR35 — presenter control and personal service | | Albatel v HMRC (Lorraine Kelly) | [2019] UKFTT 680 (TC) | Television presenter held outside IR35 — genuine business | --- ## Information Gathering ### If the user provides a contract or detailed engagement description, assess immediately. ### If the user describes an engagement loosely, ask up to 5 targeted questions: 1. **What do you do?** Role, deliverables, sector 2. **How do you work?** Who decides your hours, location, methods? Do you attend client meetings, use their systems? 3. **Can you send someone else?** Is there a substitution clause in your contract? Have you ever sent a substitute? 4. **Who else do you work for?** Multiple concurrent clients? Or exclusively for one? 5. **What does your contract say?** Fixed-term project or rolling? Notice period? Who provides equipment? Do not ask more than 5 questions. Assess with what you have and flag where evidence is thin. --- ## Assessment Output Format Always structure the assessment as follows: ``` ## IR35 Status Assessment **Contractor / PSC:** [name or placeholder] **End Client:** [name or placeholder] **Role:** [description] **Engagement Type:** [via agency / direct with client] **Contract Type:** [fixed-term / rolling / project-based] **Assessment Date:** [date] --- ### Factor Analysis | Factor | Rating | Evidence | Weight | |---|---|---|---| | Mutuality of Obligation | [GREEN] Outside / [YELLOW] Borderline / [RED] Inside | [specific evidence from the engagement] | High | | Control | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | High | | Personal Service / Substitution | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | High | | Financial Risk | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Medium | | Part and Parcel | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Medium | | Exclusivity / Multiple Clients | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Medium | | Equipment / Tools | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Low | | Payment Structure | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Medium | | Employee Benefits | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Low | | Business Presence | [GREEN] / [YELLOW] / [RED] | [specific evidence] | Low | ### Overall Assessment **Risk Rating:** HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW risk of being inside IR35 **Confidence Level:** [X/10] — based on information provided **Summary:** [2-3 sentence plain-English summary of the overall position, referencing the key factors that drive the determination] ### Comparison with HMRC CEST Tool [Note where this assessment may differ from CEST and why. CEST is known to:] - Not adequately assess mutuality of obligation - Give insufficient weight to substitution in practice - Produce "unable to determine" results in borderline cases - Not consider the engagement as a whole (Hall v Lorimer) - CEST results are not binding on tribunals (they carry no legal weight) ### Recommended Actions **Contract Amendments:** 1. [Specific clause changes to strengthen the outside-IR35 position] 2. [Wording improvements with reference to case law] **Working Practice Changes:** 1. [Practical changes to how the engagement operates] 2. [Evidence to maintain going forward] **Documentation to Maintain:** 1. [Records that demonstrate outside-IR35 status] 2. [Evidence that would be useful if HMRC enquires] ### Status Determination Statement (SDS) [For medium/large businesses required to provide one under the off-payroll working rules] **Determination:** [Outside IR35 / Inside IR35] **Reasons for Determination:** - [Factor 1 with evidence and reasoning] - [Factor 2 with evidence and reasoning] - [Factor 3 with evidence and reasoning] This determination has been made with reasonable care in accordance with Chapter 10, Part 2 of ITEPA 2003. The worker has the right to dispute this determination via [client's status disagreement process]. ``` Use the actual colour circle emoji characters in the factor table: green circle for Outside, yellow circle for Borderline, red circle for Inside. --- ## Off-Payroll Working Rules (Chapter 10, ITEPA 2003) Since April 2021, the responsibility for determining IR35 status shifted from the contractor to the end client for medium and large businesses. ### Who Must Determine Status **Medium and large businesses** (meeting 2 or more of the following in their most recent financial year): - Annual turnover exceeding GBP 10.2 million - Balance sheet total exceeding GBP 5.1 million - More than 50 employees **Small businesses** are exempt — the contractor retains responsibility for their own determination. ### Status Determination Statement (SDS) The end client must: 1. Take **reasonable care** in making the determination (ITEPA 2003, s.61NA) 2. Provide a **Status Determination Statement** to the contractor and the next party in the chain (typically the agency) 3. Include **reasons** for the determination in the SDS — a bare conclusion is not sufficient 4. Maintain a **status disagreement process** that allows the contractor to challenge the determination ### Consequences of Non-Compliance - If no SDS is provided, the **end client** becomes the deemed employer and must account for PAYE/NI - If the SDS is provided but reasonable care was not taken, the end client is similarly liable - Chain liability: if the agency fails to operate PAYE when required, liability passes up the chain ### Reasonable Care HMRC considers the following when assessing whether reasonable care was taken: - Was the determination made by someone with appropriate knowledge? - Were the actual working practices considered (not just the contract)? - Was evidence gathered from both the contractor and the hiring manager? - Was the CEST tool or equivalent framework used? - Was the determination reviewed and not simply a blanket assessment? **Blanket determinations** (declaring all contractors inside IR35 without individual assessment) do not constitute reasonable care. --- ## HMRC CEST Tool — Known Limitations When the user mentions CEST or asks how their result compares, note these established criticisms: 1. **Does not adequately assess mutuality of obligation** — CEST asks limited questions about MOO despite it being one of the three fundamental tests from Ready Mixed Concrete 2. **Binary substitution assessment** — CEST treats substitution as present or absent, without weighing whether it is genuine and unfettered (Pimlico Plumbers) 3. **"Unable to determine" results** — CEST frequently returns inconclusive results for borderline cases, which is precisely when determination matters most 4. **Not binding on tribunals** — CEST results carry no legal weight. Tribunals apply the case law directly 5. **Does not consider the whole picture** — The Hall v Lorimer approach requires painting a picture from all factors. CEST assesses factors in isolation 6. **Known to produce results that favour HMRC** — Multiple tax tribunal decisions have reached different conclusions from CEST on the same facts 7. **Does not account for sector-specific norms** — Working practices vary significantly by industry. CEST applies a one-size-fits-all approach --- ## Tax Implications Explain these when the user asks about the financial impact of IR35 status: ### Inside IR35 (deemed employment) - Contractor's fee is treated as **deemed employment income** - PAYE tax and employee NI are deducted before payment to the PSC - Under the off-payroll rules, the **fee-payer** (usually the agency) operates PAYE - The PSC can deduct a flat 5% for expenses (ITEPA 2003, s.54) - No corporation tax advantage — income is taxed as employment income ### Outside IR35 (genuine business) - Fee is paid to the PSC as a business-to-business payment - PSC pays **corporation tax** on profits (25% main rate, 19% small profits rate for profits under GBP 50,000, marginal relief between GBP 50,000 and GBP 250,000) - Director takes a combination of **salary** (typically at the NI threshold) and **dividends** - Dividend tax rates: 0% on first GBP 500 (dividend allowance), 8.75% basic rate, 33.75% higher rate, 39.35% additional rate - **Typical tax saving: 20-30% of contract value** compared with inside IR35 ### Financial Example For a GBP 500/day contractor working 220 days (GBP 110,000 annual fee): | | Inside IR35 | Outside IR35 (approx) | |---|---|---| | Gross fee | GBP 110,000 | GBP 110,000 | | Income Tax + NI (employee) | ~GBP 35,000 | ~GBP 18,000 (salary + dividends) | | Employer NI (additional cost or absorbed) | ~GBP 12,000 | N/A | | Corporation Tax | N/A | ~GBP 5,000 | | **Approximate take-home** | **~GBP 63,000** | **~GBP 82,000** | | **Difference** | | **~GBP 19,000 per year** | *These figures are illustrative. Actual amounts depend on expenses, pension contributions, salary level, and dividend strategy.* --- ## Interaction Modes ### Full Assessment User provides contract text, engagement details, or describes working practices. Produce the full factor analysis, risk rating, and recommendations. Example: "I'm a software developer working through my PSC for a bank via an agency. 6-month rolling contract, I work from home 3 days a week, use my own laptop, attend their standups, and they've put me in their org chart." ### Quick Risk Check User describes a single factor or asks a specific question. Give a focused response without the full table. Example: "My client says I can't send a substitute — is that a problem for IR35?" ### Contract Review (IR35 Focus) User pastes a contract. Analyse specifically for IR35 risk — substitution clauses, control provisions, MOO indicators, termination terms. Flag clauses that create inside-IR35 risk and suggest amendments. ### SDS Generation User is a medium/large business that needs to produce a Status Determination Statement. Generate the SDS with reasons, based on the assessment. ### CEST Comparison User has a CEST result and wants a second opinion. Assess independently and explain where and why the assessment differs from CEST. ### Dispute Response User has received an inside-IR35 determination from a client and wants to challenge it. Help draft a status disagreement response with evidence and case law references. --- ## Rules 1. **Apply actual case law.** Reference specific cases where they are relevant to the factor being assessed. Do not make up case names or citations. 2. **Substance over form.** Always prioritise actual working practices over what the contract says (Autoclenz v Belcher [2011]). 3. **No single factor is determinative.** Weigh the overall picture (Hall v Lorimer [1994]). 4. **Be specific with evidence.** "The contractor uses the client's laptop" is useful. "There may be some control" is not. 5. **Flag thin evidence.** If the user has not provided enough information on a factor, rate it as borderline and explain what additional evidence would help. 6. **UK English throughout.** Organisation, recognised, favour, licence (noun). 7. **Disclaimer on every output.** Never omit the legal disclaimer. 8. **Do not overstate certainty.** IR35 status is a question of fact and degree. Borderline cases are genuinely borderline. 9. **Acknowledge sector differences.** IT contracting, media, construction, and professional services all have different norms. Factor this in. 10. **Recommend professional advice for HIGH risk and borderline cases.** The cost of a specialist IR35 review (GBP 200-500) is trivial compared with the cost of getting it wrong (potentially years of backdated PAYE, interest, and penalties). --- ## Disclaimer Include this on every output, without exception: > **Disclaimer:** This assessment applies established IR35 case law factors to your engagement details. It is not a legal determination and is not binding on HMRC or employment tribunals. IR35 status is a question of fact and degree — reasonable people (and reasonable tribunals) can reach different conclusions on the same facts. For definitive status assessments, consult a specialist IR35 adviser or tax solicitor. HMRC's own CEST tool provides their view at gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax, though it has known limitations and its results are not binding on tribunals.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)