Trying to arrange a substitute

[d000hg]

And this guy is employed and managed by you? Odd situation but sounds like a good win if that is the case.

Hired as a contractor but yes, basically.

I view it as MyCo supplying two resources to the client rather than him being my substitute though, technically.

[Scoobos]

WHS

[FiveTimes]

Im just about to renew and I am thinking of adding a named sub to the contract (clientco have used them before) -
what's the best way of getting this worded correctly ?

Cheers

5*

[Scoobos]

Just throw it in , after the standard substitution clause, say something along the lines of :

..... with the preferred resource being xxxxx of xxxxx.

[BlasterBates]

Yes but if you do have your own office and you visit it once a week say that merely strengthens your argument.

It's not a sham if you spend some time in it.

I read one case where a contractor had his own office and did a bit of work in his own office, not much, and the judge saw this as a strong point. Now it was also clear reading the case, that contractor did not need an office for the contract in question. The contractor was give a place to work at the client's site.

So yes you can strengthen your case even if you don't really need your own office to work in, if you choose to do so it will help you. It basically demonstrates that you are working unsupervised.

...and of course it adds a whole lot of points to your business test.

[northernladuk]

Hired as a contractor but yes, basically.

I view it as MyCo supplying two resources to the client rather than him being my substitute though, technically.

It did sound like that but either way it's a win and IR35 proof. nice going.

[northernladuk]

Im just about to renew and I am thinking of adding a named sub to the contract (clientco have used them before) -
what's the best way of getting this worded correctly ?

Cheers

5*

I just can't see the point of this. If that contractor is unavailble due to him having another contract it just won't work. It also doesn't mean you can use him as your sub clause will need your client to meet him. To have a valid named sub in a contract you need to have had him vetted by the client else it's just rubbish surely. Think about all these 'tricks' from HMRC's point of view. How easy will it to be to prove it's a sham. In this, the office and all the other manufactured situations it will be a peace of piss.

[northernladuk]

Yes but if you do have your own office and you visit it once a week say that merely strengthens your argument.

It's not a sham if you spend some time in it.

I read one case where a contractor had his own office and did a bit of work in his own office, not much, and the judge saw this as a strong point. Now it was also clear reading the case, that contractor did not need an office for the contract in question. The contractor was give a place to work at the client's site.

So yes you can strengthen your case even if you don't really need your own office to work in, if you choose to do so it will help you. It basically demonstrates that you are working unsupervised.

...and of course it adds a whole lot of points to your business test.

It's a sham if you don't need it and have it just to get points. End of. I presume this was before the business tests and the added complication of contractors trying it on so won't be as strong anymore. As transparent as a fishbowl.

[SueEllen]

Yes but if you do have your own office and you visit it once a week say that merely strengthens your argument.

It's not a sham if you spend some time in it.

I read one case where a contractor had his own office and did a bit of work in his own office, not much, and the judge saw this as a strong point. Now it was also clear reading the case, that contractor did not need an office for the contract in question. The contractor was give a place to work at the client's site.

So yes you can strengthen your case even if you don't really need your own office to work in, if you choose to do so it will help you. It basically demonstrates that you are working unsupervised.

...and of course it adds a whole lot of points to your business test.

This would work if:
1. The contractor had a previous contract where he needed to work from the office a significant amount of time as the client didn't provide facilities for him to work on the client-site.
2. The contractor was in a lease/rental agreement which his business couldn't get out of and extended into the period covering the next contract.

Otherwise HMRC would say it's a sham to get around their tests.

[d000hg]

It did sound like that but either way it's a win and IR35 proof. nice going.

I even make a small profit from it

Every little helps!