• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

New to ltd company and have a few questions

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by DonaldG View Post
    I think with all the different opinions, means that each case stands on its own merits and circumstances. Dangerous to assume if one rule saves one person then it will automatically apply to you.
    Again, nonsense I am afraid. There are no differing opinions between the experts on whether or not substitution, MOO and control are crucial factors.

    We have binding case law precedent which means that principles can be consistently applied in similar circumstances so it isn't dangerous to assume that these can be relied upon.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
      There are no differing opinions between the experts on whether or not substitution, MOO and control are crucial factors.
      Say a contract fails on ROS (due to Dragonfly ruling) but succeeds on MOO and D&C. Is this enough to win the day and be outside IR35?

      QB.

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by QwertyBerty View Post
        Say a contract fails on ROS (due to Dragonfly ruling) but succeeds on MOO and D&C. Is this enough to win the day and be outside IR35?

        QB.

        Yes any one of the three is sufficient. Incidentally, Dragonfly didn't particularly tell us anything we didn't know about substitution. See http://www.accountax-ltd.com/Account...onfly-full.htm for Accountax's synopsis of the case.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
          Again, nonsense I am afraid. There are no differing opinions between the experts on whether or not substitution, MOO and control are crucial factors.

          We have binding case law precedent which means that principles can be consistently applied in similar circumstances so it isn't dangerous to assume that these can be relied upon.
          I didn't say there were differing opinions that substitution, MOO and control are crucial factors, you seem to have misunderstood. All i meant that each different case will have different circumstances.

          The HMRC and the Accounting Institutes are still having meetings on how to interpret the Dragonfly ruling, so i would say nothing is set in stone.

          Also in the Muscat v C&W case, MOO and control were crucial, but this doesn't apply to all cases.

          I would suggest if you ever get the IR35 knock on the door, go an see your accountant/lawyer.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by DonaldG View Post
            I didn't say there were differing opinions that substitution, MOO and control are crucial factors, you seem to have misunderstood. All i meant that each different case will have different circumstances.

            The HMRC and the Accounting Institutes are still having meetings on how to interpret the Dragonfly ruling, so i would say nothing is set in stone.

            Also in the Muscat v C&W case, MOO and control were crucial, but this doesn't apply to all cases.

            I would suggest if you ever get the IR35 knock on the door, go an see your accountant/lawyer.
            The point I took exception to, and maybe I was a bit harsh, was the fact that one of your earlier posts implied that financial risk was the most important factor in an IR35 defence and that substitution was a secondary factor. Control and MOO weren't mentioned.

            This I felt was misleading as it is undoubtedly the case that substitution, control and MOO are the three most important factors whereas financial risk in itself whilst important, is not as important as the other three..

            Muscat vs C&W is only one of many many cases where these three have been crucial.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by THEPUMA View Post
              The point I took exception to, and maybe I was a bit harsh, was the fact that one of your earlier posts implied that financial risk was the most important factor in an IR35 defence and that substitution was a secondary factor. Control and MOO weren't mentioned.

              This I felt was misleading as it is undoubtedly the case that substitution, control and MOO are the three most important factors whereas financial risk in itself whilst important, is not as important as the other three..

              Muscat vs C&W is only one of many many cases where these three have been crucial.
              Reading back, i agree, it probably was a bit misleading, i should re-read my posts before clicking submit.

              Still not covinced HMRC are going to aggressively chase IR35, but then i am an optimist. PAYE audits seem to be more straightforward and more of a money spinner for them

              Comment

              Working...
              X