HMRC have decided I'm inside IR35

[Unix]

Wasn't someone saying only yesterday that IR35's dead and nothing to worry about

Yes, then coincidently a newbie appears with no posts saying he is caught! The timing is almost too good.

[Martley]

You might all have to start paying tax.

If you've had an expert provided by the insurance all along, and they've now lost, I imagine the insurance will now not cover you any further seeing any future efforts as futile. Which they may well be.

If it's futile then HMRC can do what they like and we simply have to suck it up

[TheFaQQer]

Thanks for the information. Do all of these factors need to be satisfied?

How can you have been fighting this for two years, and yet not know the answer to the question? Why haven't your legal advisors discussed this with you?

[TheFaQQer]

Yes, then coincidently a newbie appears with no posts saying he is caught! The timing is almost too good.

Well, conveniently, they registered in October 2013 to say that they were under investigation.

That's some good long-term planning, if you are suggesting that because of your comment yesterday, they suddenly announced that they were caught to show how stupid your comment was.

[tractor]

You might all have to start paying tax.

If you've had an expert provided by the insurance all along, and they've now lost, I imagine the insurance will now not cover you any further seeing any future efforts as futile. Which they may well be.

From HMRC perspective, it's not the tax they are after ...

[TheFaQQer]

If you've had an expert provided by the insurance all along, and they've now lost, I imagine the insurance will now not cover you any further seeing any future efforts as futile. Which they may well be.

If that were true, then the Arctic case would never have gone to the House of Lords. I know they are different points of law, but if the insurer thinks that they will win at appeal then they should follow that appeal through.

It's at this stage that something like the Qdos insurance which pays out the tax as well doesn't look so bad, really.

[Craig at Nixon Williams]

Thanks for the information. Do all of these factors need to be satisfied?

The three factors mentioned in my previous post are the three requirements of a contract of employment - if one factor is absent then it is not a contract of employment and therefore IR35 does not apply. So basically, all three factors need to be satisfied for HMRC to win - if one is not satisfied then you win.

[Unix]

Well, conveniently, they registered in October 2013 to say that they were under investigation.

That's some good long-term planning, if you are suggesting that because of your comment yesterday, they suddenly announced that they were caught to show how stupid your comment was.

How does one person saying there caught show my analysis was stupid? I bet there are another 100k contractors right now who are not being investigated.

[VectraMan]

If that were true, then the Arctic case would never have gone to the House of Lords. I know they are different points of law, but if the insurer thinks that they will win at appeal then they should follow that appeal through.

They backed that as a test case IIRC. Clearly they aren't going to pay to take every case to the House of Lords.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I am amazed that such important legislation can hinge on frameworks that actually have no legal standing. Something really is not right about it all and hasn't been since 2000 and PCG losing the Judicial Reviews. Business entity tests that have no legal standing; tick boxes on forms that can be ignored; Tax code definitions that have no legal definition or meaning (PSC) etc. etc.

The BET's have no legal standing but IR35 is based on legal precedents i.e. the differences between a contract for services and a contract of service that have developed in case law over the years