Cost of a losing an IR35 case?

[Old Greg]

To be fair, this is now the most factually correct post on this thread so far. But I had a nice run going there for a while.

2 equals 2.

[WordIsBond]

2 equals 2.

Nice try, but that's only one fact, and NLUK dumped loads of them on us. His might not have been as important or relevant as the facts in my earlier comment, but we can't deny that he did bring the facts.

[WordIsBond]

I now anticipate this thread going completely pear-shaped.

[LondonManc]

If your contract (and previous 4 extension) are deemed inside, you'd have two and a half years of insideness at one client. That's a lot of back tax.

However, I think you'd be able to get a claim in for 30 months of unpaid holidays plus any sick pay in the last 18 months as well as any other employee benefits that you might have been entitled to. Companies will soon learn that it's not in their interest to throw contractors under a bus.

[eek]

If your contract (and previous 4 extension) are deemed inside, you'd have two and a half years of insideness at one client. That's a lot of back tax.

However, I think you'd be able to get a claim in for 30 months of unpaid holidays plus any sick pay in the last 18 months as well as any other employee benefits that you might have been entitled to. Companies will soon learn that it's not in their interest to throw contractors under a bus.

Nope - employed for tax purposes does not mean employed for employee benefit purposes (you can be the former and not the latter) so that back holiday may not be available.

No Rights Employee is a whole site highlighting what it means...

[northernladuk]

I now anticipate this thread going completely pear-shaped.

:rollin

[PTP]

Nope - employed for tax purposes does not mean employed for employee benefit purposes (you can be the former and not the latter) so that back holiday may not be available.

No Rights Employee is a whole site highlighting what it means...

Yes it's a whole site highlighting what is currently happening, but not necessarily what companies will get away with.

And this is backed up by IR35 barrister Alexander Wilson (rightly or wrongly):

IR35 - Risk to Client / Business

The IR35 test is the same test as the common law test for employment.

That bears repeating: It is the same test. The legislation specifically lifts the common law test directly into the statute.

By unilaterally declaring that the engagement is "inside IR35" you will be unilaterally declaring that the common law employment test is met.

If an IR35 assessment is correct, the only correct assessment on employment status will follow suit.

[Old Greg]

Nice try, but that's only one fact, and NLUK dumped loads of them on us. His might not have been as important or relevant as the facts in my earlier comment, but we can't deny that he did bring the facts.

My post was 100% indisputably factually correct.

[northernladuk]

My post was 100% indisputably factually correct.

*cough*

Let x=y

Multiply both sides by x:

x2=xy
(squared)

Subtract y2 (squared)
from both sides:

x2−y2=xy−y2

Factor:

(x+y)(x−y)=y(x−y)

Cancel out (x−y)

from both sides:

(x+y)=y

Simplify (Because x=y
):


y+y=y

2y=y


2=1

Boooom! Do one!!!

[jamesbrown]

*cough*

Factor:

Yeah, about that...