HMRC lose ir35 case

[oracleslave]

That's a bit of a worry. Are we supposed to completely ignore project managers (that'd be good), ignore client's requirements and keep them in the dark as to progress?

Yes that little paragraph had me concerned as well.

[malvolio]

Yes that little paragraph had me concerned as well.

Without seeing the detail, I read that as meaning he was told what to do and by when by his PM, as opposed to being given the general instruction "support this application development" and left to do it by himself. It's not the reporting of progress that was the issue as much as the lack of freedom to manage his own work. It is, however, a pretty fine distinction and I suspect it would have been ignored had the other indicators not been so clear.

Also note he represented himself with the client's support, so either not a PCG member or didn't bother getting representation. What's the betting Lawspeed or Accountax would have won?

[Denny]

Without seeing the detail, I read that as meaning he was told what to do and by when by his PM, as opposed to being given the general instruction "support this application development" and left to do it by himself. It's not the reporting of progress that was the issue as much as the lack of freedom to manage his own work. It is, however, a pretty fine distinction and I suspect it would have been ignored had the other indicators not been so clear.

Also note he represented himself with the client's support, so either not a PCG member or didn't bother getting representation. What's the betting Lawspeed or Accountax would have won?

This is a clear case of a 'bum on seater' pseudo temp masquerading as a contractor supplier and not bothering too hard to acting in a businesslike fashion to ensure his working practices reflected the contract he signed or demonstrate that he had the expertise to define his own work. Clearly he wasn't prepared to risk being terminated by questioning what he must have known quickly into the role that the working practices were reflecting the contract he signed. He sounds to me like one of the 'I've had the contract checked out and it's outside ir35 therefore I'm home and dry and I have insurance' brigade so I'll behave like any other member of staff and not rock the boat. That, in itslef, disqualifies him from ir35 exemption because he was clearly risk averse.

Nor did he ensure that the upper contract reflected the lower contract, based on what I read (which are not the full case notes). Whether he would have won by Accountax or Lawspeed is questionable, under the circumstances, because no amount of legalese 'marketing' to promote his ir35 exempt status unevidenced by the facts would have changed the result. It is clear also, from what his article states, that he had no rights of substitution at all in the upper contract but did in the lower contract.

Contractors who are careful and confident in their own ability to deliver and make the necessary provisions as stated above should not have too much of a problem staying outside ir35. But they should also guard against billing for time they have not worked, or else doing the work from home. Nor should they phrase time off arrangments as permissions when making courtesy arrangments with the PM for time out. How many times have I read on this forum that contractors still bill during downtime or when the work has dried up and they go off early and boasting they are getting paid for the full time that hasn't been filled? Too many. Even temps can't do that, and they quasi employed via the EB. So that is something to watch out for.

I also suspect, that the contractor in question was not a sufficiently experienced 'expert' in his field at all - either as a businessman or specialist IT consultant, but simply an skill set operative looking to move to a bigger role, or else someone who had inflated his abilities at the interview, so much so, that once on the job he had to ask how to do the work and be guided and directed about how to do it rather than make an assessment on what he should do, based on a framework of expectations for his own deliverables to sell to the client via his timesheet for work performed.

[SueEllen]

Denny how can you come to that conclusion without knowing all the facts?

The news story gives no detailed information and what I know of the court cases people I know have been involved in what the media print is actually not the entire story.

His main problem as far as I can see was defending himself against HMRC and having a big mouth.

[Denny]

Yes that little paragraph had me concerned as well.

I doubt that is a correct interpretation. If you hire a builder to build you a house then I would still expect to be kept abreast of how they are keeping to schedule and know what risks are imminent in case the project goes overbudget.

I expect it was more to do with the way the progress reporting was done. It probably had an air of 'am I doing this right? Can you tell me what I need to do if it isn't?' This is little more than supervision of skillsets, not progress reporting on deliverables. I doubt there was any status update from the contractor about how and why they had chosen a particular way of doing the work, with clear justifications about why they had come to that conclusion enough to satisfy the PM that they had hired a professional expert.

[DiscoStu]

This is a clear case of a 'bum on seater' pseudo temp masquerading as a contractor supplier....

Could someone do me an executive summary? I lost the will to live about 1/3 of the way in.

[SueEllen]

Could someone do me an executive summary? I lost the will to live about 1/3 of the way in.

Guy lost case because he was a temp.

He did what he was told to do by management, he claimed payment for hours not worked and he didn't act like he had his own business in the workplace.

[Bluebird]

I take it there is no comeback on the agency at all for the way they set the contracts up ?

[DiscoStu]

Guy lost case because he was a temp.

He did what he was told to do by management, he claimed payment for hours not worked and he didn't act like he had his own business in the workplace.

I thank you

[Denny]

Denny how can you come to that conclusion without knowing all the facts?

The news story gives no detailed information and what I know of the court cases people I know have been involved in what the media print is actually not the entire story.

His main problem as far as I can see was defending himself against HMRC and having a big mouth.

I think you've been hitting the Vodka bottle again haven't you, SE! I know you are used to be bullied by JR but pleeeeeze.....read my post again. I didn't say I knew all the facts, I specifically acknowledged that in the post. So I am not jumping to any conclusions at all. Simply using my intuition based on the article I read and marrying that with the type of posts I sometimes see on here in reference to the article.

If the entire facts had been furnished then I would have read them first. But we are all entitled to put forward an opinion based on the article. Otherwise, no one would be able to comment on this case outcome and you wouldn't have had any need to challenge my post.

I assume that you wouldn't have had a problem with my post if I had spun a more positive interpretation on the article and about who was at fault, which would be no more accurate, based on the absence of all the facts, than my more sceptical one and, therefore, just as intuitive?

Next time you query my judgement, I will send you to the sanotarium.