Hello All,
Still not knowing 100% if I'm inside or outside IR35 (some "facts" say I'm out while one other fact says I'm not) and researching test cases on substitution, control, etc are non-conclusive (i.e. if someone did substitute but they still got caught by IR35), blah blah.
So I was wondering how did IR35 get past into law?, surely with such "finger in the air" guess work as to if your in or out it can't be legal?, is there a way to get IR35 removed as illegal or immoral? As the only conclusion I have is that ALL one man companies could be said as inside IR35 depending on which "rules" want to be used or not.
Also if IR35 is to show that one man companies are actually permy's why isn't the opposite true?, are there cases where a permy proved he was outside IR35 and so was entitled to be being paid more? - Logic dictates you should have both sides, surely?
Regards
Mr outside IR35 (if IR is reading this)
Still not knowing 100% if I'm inside or outside IR35 (some "facts" say I'm out while one other fact says I'm not) and researching test cases on substitution, control, etc are non-conclusive (i.e. if someone did substitute but they still got caught by IR35), blah blah.
So I was wondering how did IR35 get past into law?, surely with such "finger in the air" guess work as to if your in or out it can't be legal?, is there a way to get IR35 removed as illegal or immoral? As the only conclusion I have is that ALL one man companies could be said as inside IR35 depending on which "rules" want to be used or not.
Also if IR35 is to show that one man companies are actually permy's why isn't the opposite true?, are there cases where a permy proved he was outside IR35 and so was entitled to be being paid more? - Logic dictates you should have both sides, surely?
Regards
Mr outside IR35 (if IR is reading this)
Comment