Outside/inside/outside 35 advice

[Andy Hallett]

I think the fact the OP "resigned" as opposed to issued contractual notice pretty much explains the relationship.

My advice would be to start again elsewhere afresh.

[northernladuk]

Case law is law.

You've got it bass-akwards. There are two problems with your argument, one is the confusion of correlation as causation and the other is the strength of the correlation. Length of contract is not the cause, it is merely correlated with bad working practices in some cases, but it's the poor working practices that cause the situation. The second problem is that your argument for a "strong link" or strong correlation is self-evidently wrong when it's easy to hypothesise cases involving short contracts that are inside and long contracts that are outside. Strong correlation seems prima facie wrong, just as a trivial/mathematical point. Some correlation seems right.

Even the argument for an asymmetric relationship (e.g., contract length is neutral for short contracts but all long contracts are inside) is wrong, but your assertion appears to be bolder than that.

If IR35 were anything like that simple, we'd effectively have strict deeming criteria, not case law. The reason why IR35 has failed, indeed the reason for Chapter 10, is that tribunal judges consider the working practices and not some noddy impression of the contract, such as contract length.

Cherry picking individual conclusions from these judgements doesn't work because, as always, there is a balance of pointers in either direction. I don't believe you can point to a single case where contract length was determinative (if you could, I would know about it).

As an aside, on what planet is "3 years" not a "long" contract?

No case has single 'determinative' factor. It's a break down of a number of issues, usually the standard pillars but I have shown length of time has also been thrown in to the mix.

But we will leave it there. I think I have made the point that debunks any statement that time spent is not a factor in an investigation. The details we can argue for hours and isn't really achieving anything.

[jamesbrown]

No case has single 'determinative' factor. It's a break down of a number of issues, usually the standard pillars but I have shown length of time has also been thrown in to the mix.

But we will leave it there. I think I have made the point that debunks any statement that time spent is not a factor in an investigation. The details we can argue for hours and isn't really achieving anything.

Time spent is not a factor. Being part and parcel is a factor. Being integrated with a team is a factor. Operating like other employees is a factor. Not doing project-based work is a factor. Not being in business on your own account is a factor. These are all causes, all about poor working practices. Length of contract is a lazy shorthand for some other things, so it's better to talk about those other things. As I said from the beginning, there is not "no" relationship, just a weak and indirect one.