Interesting article - Substitution

[psychocandy]

https://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php...-a&Itemid=1413

Seems to be saying that if you send in a sub even once then you're in the clear IR35-wise? Sounds good.

Theoretically, I guess you could ask a mate to help you out with some documentation - not necessarily in the client office? Pay them = job done. Does the client really have to even know about this? For instance, WFH for few days to get documentation done, ask mate to do it for you and pay them accordingly?

[malvolio]

https://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php...-a&Itemid=1413

Seems to be saying that if you send in a sub even once then you're in the clear IR35-wise? Sounds good.

Theoretically, I guess you could ask a mate to help you out with some documentation - not necessarily in the client office? Pay them = job done. Does the client really have to even know about this? For instance, WFH for few days to get documentation done, ask mate to do it for you and pay them accordingly?

Hardly new news, it goes back the original RMC case in the 60s and has always applied. To put it simply:

• Employees can't send subs.
• Send in a sub you are not an employee.
• You are not an employee so IR35 doesn't apply.

But before you get carried away, the subbie has to be doing your job, not bits of it.

[The Spartan]

I have a question forgive me for being a little green in this area but say for instance I send a substitute who has a full time job of his own will this have any bearing? for example I have had full time jobs whereas as long as the additional work you do doesn't conflict with your main job they don't mind you doing part-time work for someone else.

[northernladuk]

I have a question forgive me for being a little green in this area but say for instance I send a substitute who has a full time job of his own will this have any bearing? for example I have had full time jobs whereas as long as the additional work you do doesn't conflict with your main job they don't mind you doing part-time work for someone else.

A sub is a sub, doesn't matter who or what they are as long as they can pick up your work IR35 wise you have a great pointer to outside (not the be all and end all of course!).

[northernladuk]

https://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php...-a&Itemid=1413

Seems to be saying that if you send in a sub even once then you're in the clear IR35-wise? Sounds good.

Theoretically, I guess you could ask a mate to help you out with some documentation - not necessarily in the client office? Pay them = job done. Does the client really have to even know about this? For instance, WFH for few days to get documentation done, ask mate to do it for you and pay them accordingly?

What Mal says but your example is not a valid sub. That is subcontracting the work, not substituting you. How can a client not know if you have been sub'd. You do need to think about the situation a little rather than pick random ideas out of the air.

[The Spartan]

You are of course correct in that this is not the be all and end all as far as IR35 goes but it is nice to know that if needed there are no problems if I need to call on a previous associate to substitute as long as the contract allows it

[psychocandy]

Hardly new news, it goes back the original RMC case in the 60s and has always applied. To put it simply:

• Employees can't send subs.
• Send in a sub you are not an employee.
• You are not an employee so IR35 doesn't apply.

But before you get carried away, the subbie has to be doing your job, not bits of it.

Hmmm. Don't understand the bits of it thing. Why not? Are you saying the sub has got to physically attend a client site for a day?

OK, look at this scenario. I've got some documentation to do - so I tell client I will WAH for 3 days. Instead, for one of these days I get some in to sub and do part of the document for me. Surely this 'my job'?

[northernladuk]

Hmmm. Don't understand the bits of it thing. Why not? Are you saying the sub has got to physically attend a client site for a day?

OK, look at this scenario. I've got some documentation to do - so I tell client I will WAH for 3 days. Instead, for one of these days I get some in to sub and do part of the document for me. Surely this 'my job'?

What are you not understanding about SUBSTITUTION.... to let someone else do you job... not take bits of work.

You are not substituting.. You are subcontracting the work. It is your job but you are letting someone else do it for you... not instead of you. Your sub has to take your place in the contract with the client... instead of talking to you they talk to your sub. Talking THROUGH you is subcontracting..

Seriously.. you can't substitute yourself without getting client approval. It just doesn't make sense. You can subcontract with him knowing but you can't swap yourself out for someone else without him knowing.

Not getting that, how about this... Permies can take pieces of work away and let someone else do it.

Gotta do better than this fella.

[northernladuk]

You are of course correct in that this is not the be all and end all as far as IR35 goes but it is nice to know that if needed there are no problems if I need to call on a previous associate to substitute as long as the contract allows it

If your contract doesn't allow it you are in danger of being inside IR35 already.

Good luck with pulling it off though. I reckon 90% or more of sub clauses won't work for one reason or another.

[speling bee]

I am interested in the idea of sub-contracting (not substituting). I don't think a permie would be allowed to pay someone else to do their work. What is the esteemed panel's view on the implications of sub-contracting on employment status? For example, my Ltd pays a subbie to create my MS Project schedule.