Has anyone considered running multiple contracts during this?

[jamesbrown]

It worked for Lorraine Kelly.

No it didn’t. There was clear evidence of lack of D&C whose absence is sufficient to be outside. The in-business factors were a bonus. Had the sufficient degree of control been present, she would’ve lost.

[Lance]

Has anyone considered running multiple contracts during this?

No it didn’t. There was clear evidence of lack of D&C whose absence is sufficient to be outside. The in-business factors were a bonus. Had the sufficient degree of control been present, she would’ve lost.

Lack of D&C was evidenced by the fact that neither client had first call on her time.
Something which having two clients provides (assuming they’re don’t have first call of your time).

I have the same. My main client asked me to cancel a business trip for client 2 as they wanted me then. I said no. And have that evidenced. Ergo no D&C.

[LondonManc]

If it's good for your business, do it. It's what your shareholders would want.

[SimonMac]

If it's good for your business, do it. It's what your shareholders would want.

Shareholders don't want the main source of income to burn out

[jamesbrown]

Lack of D&C was evidenced by the fact that neither client had first call on her time.
Something which having two clients provides (assuming they’re don’t have first call of your time).

I have the same. My main client asked me to cancel a business trip for client 2 as they wanted me then. I said no. And have that evidenced. Ergo no D&C.

It’s really quite simple. A hypothetical contract is formed separately for each engagement. The in-business factors are only considered when stepping back to view the broader context. There is no judgement where in-business factors alone were sufficient in the absence of at least one of the three pillars, either directly or indirectly. Read the judgement again. Lack of D&C was summarised thusly:

LK drives and controls her services and essentially she drives the programme. It is up to her how she presents and the subject matter [...] LK is not bound by ITV’s code of conduct which is for employees [...] They (ITV) couldn’t do anything LK didn’t believe in [...] LK drives the ratings [...] If there was no LK there would be no show

[LondonManc]

Shareholders don't want the main source of income to burn out

Mrs SM may beg to differ if the insurance payments are up to date.

[Lance]

LK drives and controls her services and essentially she drives the programme. It is up to her how she presents and the subject matter [...] LK is not bound by ITV’s code of conduct which is for employees [...] They (ITV) couldn’t do anything LK didn’t believe in [...] LK drives the ratings [...] If there was no LK there would be no show

was that her counsel or the tribunal finding?

[jamesbrown]

was that her counsel or the tribunal finding?

Full judgement here:

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...09/TC07045.pdf

We are satisfied that control of Ms Kelly’s work pursuant to the hypothetical contract lay with Ms Kelly. In our view, the level of control falls far substantially below the sufficient degree required to demonstrate a contract for service

Like I said, absent the (lack of) sufficient degree of control, the minor in-business factors wouldn’t have amounted to anything. No case has been won on those alone. I think we agree that presence of (some of) the three pillars tends to bleed into positive in-business factors too. Anyway, thread derail, so that’s the last on this from me.

[WordIsBond]

I think there's a little bit of false dichotomy here. In real life, multiple clients almost always brings with it evidence against SDC and against MOO. If you have multiple clients, you can always find things, like Lance's business trip, that are really useful to have in your IR35 dossier to help you demonstrate, if not a lack of, at least limits to, SDC.

If you've got a reasonable case, multiple clients will probably seal it. In an area with so much subjectivity, having something like that in your arsenal is really useful.

[Old Greg]

I think there's a little bit of false dichotomy here. In real life, multiple clients almost always brings with it evidence against SDC and against MOO. If you have multiple clients, you can always find things, like Lance's business trip, that are really useful to have in your IR35 dossier to help you demonstrate, if not a lack of, at least limits to, SDC.

If you've got a reasonable case, multiple clients will probably seal it. In an area with so much subjectivity, having something like that in your arsenal is really useful.

I would also expect (but I don't know) that having multiple clients would decrease your likelihood of being investigated.