IR35 loses appeal case

[malvolio]

Because one guy is daft enough to work as though he were a permie for a length of time does not mean that working for a length of time is a pointer toward IR35, it means working as a permie does. Many cases have been won with people on multi-year gigs.

[smalldog]

Because one guy is daft enough to work as though he were a permie for a length of time does not mean that working for a length of time is a pointer toward IR35, it means working as a permie does. Many cases have been won with people on multi-year gigs.

It absolutely does....read the transcript which is now a test case...And as you are so aware of how courts work you will know that test cases such as these define practical law and ratify passed bills...Dont argue with us argue with the appeal court judge.

PS - here is the actual extract from HMRC's own website re IR35 so please dont argue points purely on what u think rather than the actual facts:

Length of engagement
By itself, the length of a particular engagement may have little importance in determining employment status, although it is more likely that an employee will have an open-ended contract.

It is; however, common these days for employees to be engaged on fixed term contracts. Where a person undertakes a number of short-term engagements for different engagers and runs the risk of bad debts, incurs expenditure in the course of obtaining engagements and so on, he or she may be regarded as self-employed. On the other hand, a person engaged on a short-term contract may be regarded as a casual employee. This factor must be viewed in the light of all the different aspects of a person’s work.

the by itself is the important bit, clumepd together with all the other elements it has a bearing....

[Torran]

There was no compelling evidence that Mr Shepherd was in business on his own account during his engagement with Gerling NCM.

This bit is the crux for me, not the length of his attendance at the client. He was limited but was actually temping

[smalldog]

This bit is the crux for me, not the length of his attendance at the client. He was limited but was actually temping

Torran, I dont disagree it wasnt one factor....however to say his time at the client was irrelevant is naive

[DonkeyRhubarb]

No, I said that you don't get out of IR35 by pretending it doesn't exist, you have to put some effort into it and you have to make sure your working practices are aligned to the contract and to being outside IR35.

Isn't this just a convoluted way of saying that you are expoiting loopholes in the IR35 legislation?

I doubt whether the Government would dare to retrospectively "clarify" IR35 but you better believe that their original intention was to put a stop to PSCs, so it is only a matter of time before they ammend the legislation so it does what they always intended. Of course, judging by their track record, they will probably do half-ars*d job of it and still leave a few loopholes.

[malvolio]

Torran, I dont disagree it wasnt one factor....however to say his time at the client was irrelevant is naive

Believe what you like. Of the extant test cases, one had been with the same client for 8 years, another for 20. HMRC consider that to be good business practice and entirely neutral as an IR35 pointer.

[smalldog]

Im not believing anything Im looking at a case that used many factors, including length of service to point to an employee status...got nothing to do with my belief system...

[NotAllThere]

HMRC would like you very much to believe that length of service has a bearing. Case law (20 years!) has shown that it doesn't. Or if it does, it would only be minor on top of a whole host of other pointers towards IR35.

How can that guy honestly think he falls outside IR35 when he worked for the same company at the same desk for 7 years!!!

How can that guy honestly think he falls outside IR35 when he worked for the same company at the same desk for 7 years, became part and parcel of the client company, had to complete monthly reports, had to apply for leave...

[smalldog]

be interesting to see how this case is interpreted, and its reprocussions if any...I dont know any contractors (doesnt mean there arent any of course) that dont have to request holiday, or complete a set of tasks determined by their superiors...

[blacjac]

.I dont know any contractors (doesnt mean there arent any of course) that dont have to request holiday...

I don't

I tell my clients when I won't be available.

.
or complete a set of tasks determined by their superiors

The point is contractors don't have superiors, they have customers.

If you have superiors at your client then you are a disguised employee and IR35 caught.


No wonder you don't understand what's going on.....