IR35 Shuttle Bus

[JohntheBike]

I think you're pulling my leg, but here is the email address:

editor@contractoruk.com

sent, and you will see that I'm not pulling your leg. It would be unwise to publish any of the details on these fora.

[Old Greg]

sent, and you will see that I'm not pulling your leg. It would be unwise to publish any of the details on these fora.

I look forward to reading about it.

[JohntheBike]

Not an employee from an employment law perspective or from a taxation perspective?

as I keep saying, no one has taken their case to both the First Tier Tribunal and the ET for the same engagement, let alone received a different judgement. So there is no case law to support the claim that an individual can be an employee for tax purposes but not for employment benefits.

No one has yet challenged me with details of case law to disprove this claim.

[northernladuk]

I look forward to posting it in the forum .

FTFY

[Old Greg]

as I keep saying, no one has taken their case to both the First Tier Tribunal and the ET for the same engagement, let alone received a different judgement. So there is no case law to support the claim that if an individual is an employee for tax purposes they are accordingly employees for employment benefits.

No one has yet challenged me with details of case law to disprove this claim.

FTFY

[JohntheBike]

A totally different type of action which has nothing to do with yours, 16 years after yours justifies that your actions??



Jesus wept. Scraping the barrel a bit there aren't you?

Both cases uphold my opinion that the ET is an effective weapon against IR35 and now CEST.

Read the recent post from Shout99 "a brave man has his day in court"

I set out as a BOS with no ROS, to determine the issues surrounding IR35. I was either self employed, or I was an employee. There would be no other status. I achieved my aim of showing that as a BOS with no ROS, I couldn't be an employee of my client and thus couldn't be subject to IR35. The HMRC abandoned their intended investigation of me under IR35 as a result of this case. And before you ask, I have a letter written to the local inspector from the HMRC area director advising him not to proceed with the investigation. I obtained this under the subject access provisions of the DPA.

So I say again, I was fighting IR35 when others were talking a good campaign. Some critics in another place were still in short pants when I was engaged in my fight.

So, I will never change my opinion, even in the face of further criticisms. So I guess I'll p*ss you off soon enough.

[JohntheBike]

FTFY

my contention is that you cannot be an employee for tax purposes and not an employee for employment benefits as there is no case law to support this or the reverse.

[JohntheBike]

I look forward to reading about it.

I would suggest we communicate outside of these fora if there is anything else you wish to know.

[JohntheBike]

FTFY

it shouldn't be done as the poster might expose themselves to legal action given the contents of the document.

[Old Greg]

I would suggest we communicate outside of these fora if there is anything else you wish to know.

You have my email address.