Email and working on client's site

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

Not really. 99% of IR35 cases will be decided upon substitution, control and/or MOO.

Who says?

[THEPUMA]

Who says?

Me.
Caselaw precedent.
David Smith of Accountax.
Anyone who know what they're talking about.

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

Fair enough.

But do you think that the Part & Parcel test should be completely ignored, then? Of course, subsititution, D&C and MOO is important but its the whole arrangement between client, agency and contractor that needs to be addressed not just certain areas.

[THEPUMA]

Fair enough.

But do you think that the Part & Parcel test should be completely ignored, then? Of course, subsititution, D&C and MOO is important but its the whole arrangement between client, agency and contractor that needs to be addressed not just certain areas.

When reviewing a contract, I will initially only consider substitution, D&C and MOO. If it passes on one of them, I wouldn't give P&P a second thought. If it doesn't pass on any of them, then it may be worth considering, amongst several other minor factors.

Of course, this pre-supposes that existing caselaw isn't superceded and I would caveat accordingly but I don't think there is any other practical assumption you can make.

PUMA

[basshead]

When using @ClientCo email address I now sign it as 'MyCo Ltd for and on behalf of ClientCo'. I would change it if ClientCo insisted, but until then the advert, er I mean 'signature' remains