IR35 - Impotent HMRC Arguments - Contractor Weekly
I think this does support my stance here and malvolio point
Mutuality of obligation (MOO)
Once again, HMRC trotted out their simple definition of MOO, in that for each period of engagement there would have been an offer of work, an agreement to do that work and an agreement to pay for it.
During the engagement period there were at least a couple of occasions when the computer servers broke down and the contractors were sent home, without pay, whereas employees remained in place and were remunerated. This demonstrated that JCB did not consider itself under any obligation to provide work or pay even after an offer had been made and accepted.
Marlen terminated the contract early when a better offer came up further enhancing the belief of both parties that the contract could be terminated at any time without any consequence.
The Tribunal came to only one conclusion: that the relationship between the parties was not one in which MOO was present.
Once again, HMRC trotted out their simple definition of MOO, in that for each period of engagement there would have been an offer of work, an agreement to do that work and an agreement to pay for it.
During the engagement period there were at least a couple of occasions when the computer servers broke down and the contractors were sent home, without pay, whereas employees remained in place and were remunerated. This demonstrated that JCB did not consider itself under any obligation to provide work or pay even after an offer had been made and accepted.
Marlen terminated the contract early when a better offer came up further enhancing the belief of both parties that the contract could be terminated at any time without any consequence.
The Tribunal came to only one conclusion: that the relationship between the parties was not one in which MOO was present.
Comment