New IR35 case decision

[Elicitor]

Interesting new IR35 decision from the Special Commissioners.

Contractor lost his case after taking a series of six month contracts with the client.

Case can be downloaded here:
Netherlane v Simon York SPC 457
www.dcode.co.uk/site/home...PC457.html

Worth noting what the Special Commissioner said:

“I consider that clearly he [the contractor] would be an employee. In coming to this conclusion I am fully aware of the different risks involved. [The contractor] had absolutely no security at the end of each six months term and the reason that his contract was renewed was no doubt because he was good at his job. But in return he was paid more although against this he received no fringe benefits. To him, the difference in risk of not being able to renew the contract was no doubt very important and made him completely unlike an employee. But IR35 does not seem to pay attention to this as it starts from the actual contractual position and asks one to assume that it is replaced by a hypothetical contract.”

The Special Commissioner goes into some detail about the factors to take into account in determining employment status.

8)

[Mustang]

I am not so surprised on this one. He doesn't seem to have tried to adhere to the "silver bullets" of IR 35, especially since he only had a 2 page contract to begin with and then not a substantial one after that. He must have realised that taking 6 month contracts for so long must have been making him more visible for scrutiny under the IR rules.....!

Never like to hear of a contractor losing an appeal but some of us are more likely to be caught than others!

[Underscore]

this is the big one....

"Working on continuing computer support and maintenance rather than on a specific assignment with a finite life."

If you are doing a support role for 4 years or so - you've got no chance. He's an employee - no doubt.

[malvolio]

That's in all the advice to date

...make sure the contract schedule covers a specific piece of work, not an indeterminate supply of general services. Sadly, that's not always that easy!

[OrangeHopper]

Re: That's in all the advice to date

Many people regard themselves outside of IR35 regardless of the length of service and the fact they do identical work to permies sitting next to them.

[mailmannz]

Re: That's in all the advice to date

To him, the difference in risk of not being able to renew the contract was no doubt very important and made him completely unlike an employee

The Special Commissioner said this then found against him? :lol :\

Mailman

[partimer]

Re: That's in all the advice to date

To me this case has made it seem like going to the special commissioners is pot luck and more a lottery. I bet a different guy would have looked at it differently.

>support role for 4 years or so - you've got no chance
Not always true because you can have a support contract. It's how you do the work that's important. A company outsourcing their support to an external company. That external company would be outside IR35 if they did the contracts correctly (business to business).

It shows how complicated the IR35 issue is.
Don't just stick your hand up and say I'm outside IR35. You've really got to have as many factors pointing towards it. One won't be enough.

It's annoying how they treat each contract separately so you could potentially do two simultaneous contracts, one inside IR35 and the other outside IR35. Total madness but that's what happens when you make a muddy piece of legislation.

[bam70049]

Re: That's in all the advice to date

>I am fully aware of the different risks involved. [The contractor] had absolutely no security at the end of each six months term and the reason that his contract was renewed was no doubt because he was good at his job. But in return he was paid more although against this he received no fringe benefits.

Meaning: Hey you get paid a lot so tough