Right of Substitution...Interesting case

[Wanderer]

Sorry, can't agree with that

I don't agree either with nluk either, so I'll add my sticking out tongue to that

This particular case outlines what the client requires from the contractor if they choose to subcontract the work. It has nothing to do with what HMRC require to prove that a substitution could be made. Indeed, it strengthens our case because in this situation the worker didn't know he had a RoS but the fact that RoS existed was a pointer to self employment. You could therefore reverse this and throw it back at the HMRC saying that just because the client wasn't aware of a RoS existing doesn't mean that it wasn't a realistic option...

[northernladuk]

I don't agree either with nluk either, so I'll add my sticking out tongue to that

This particular case outlines what the client requires from the contractor if they choose to subcontract the work. It has nothing to do with what HMRC require to prove that a substitution could be made. Indeed, it strengthens our case because in this situation the worker didn't know he had a RoS but the fact that RoS existed was a pointer to self employment. You could therefore reverse this and throw it back at the HMRC saying that just because the client wasn't aware of a RoS existing doesn't mean that it wasn't a realistic option...

Hmm interesting. Maybe I should have appended this to a thread not so long ago where people were thinking subcontracting some of the work out without telling the client would prove RoS. I thought this case was interesting that it showed how to prove RoS properly. I didn't think I was making a point to agree or disagree but probably cause I didn't post any context.

Surely it does have something to do with it though. If you don't meet the criteria for the client to accept a substitution how can you prove you have? If client says no then there is no substitution? You can try prove what you want but as in the JLJ case, if client says no subs you are screwed.

Dunno about that last sentance though. Someone has severely ****ed up if they are at a client that doesn't know RoS exists as it should be in the contract as per basic IR35 checks but get your meaning.

[MyUserName]

I would think that the RoS should be in place to a sufficient point where you can show it was a viable option and not just a box ticking exercise.

For example if you work in a secure environment and there are dozens of checks in place and you can show you have someone who has passed all of these checks who can sub you if needed then it might carry more weight than if you said you would find someone if you needed to.

However, it is all just different shades of grey.

[SueEllen]

Hmm interesting. Maybe I should have appended this to a thread not so long ago where people were thinking subcontracting some of the work out without telling the client would prove RoS. I thought this case was interesting that it showed how to prove RoS properly. I didn't think I was making a point to agree or disagree but probably cause I didn't post any context.

On another note how many British employees subcontract their work out?

If you work like the building trades i.e. they get other skilled workers in to do the jobs they can't do or don't want to do, but are responsible for quality control I doubt a judge would decide that you haven't used your right of substitution. (Funnily enough I just Googled and found this )