Does control influence whether an engagement is one of for service or of service ?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We'll the judgement is, there is no transcript, but of course I was there and so I know what was said. But you only really need the judges ruling which is in the public domain

So could you post a link to the judgement?

[Rory Dwyer]

Rory, have a read over your posts and ask yourself: if you were an open minded reasonable contractor, would your posts make you more or less likely to do business with you?

As I have already stated, the majority, if not all choose to opt out, those that don't, I would wager are outside of IR35 implications.

If I were an open minded contractor, I would respect the company that choose to bring this issue to my attention, based on the facts of the case, they didn't stop paying innocent parties.

I would deduce that this company acts with integrity and honesty and is a business I would wish to do business with.

[Rory Dwyer]

So could you post a link to the judgement?

I have a written copy of the judgement but no link

[Old Greg]

As I have already stated, the majority, if not all choose to opt out, those that don't, I would wager are outside of IR35 implications.

If I were an open minded contractor, I would respect the company that choose to bring this issue to my attention, based on the facts of the case, they didn't stop paying innocent parties.

I would deduce that this company acts with integrity and honesty and is a business I would wish to do business with.

You don't really come across how you like to think you do.

[Rory Dwyer]

You don't really come across how you like to think you do.

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and given that no one is actually raising any issues regarding the topic of the thread, I guess there is nothing left for you to do than get personal. No problem, I respect your right to an opinion.

[Old Greg]

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and given that no one is actually raising any issues regarding the topic of the thread, I guess there is nothing left for you to do than get personal. No problem, I respect your right to an opinion.

I'm trying to give you some business advice.

[Rory Dwyer]

I'm trying to give you some business advice.

Well one could argue, if you are correct it is a bit late, one could also state, take my advice, because I am not using it or one could also be of the opinion that they disagree with your opinion.

As I have three likes and that is three more than I expected to get from this audience.

I'll most probably lose those three now I have made that comment

[Old Greg]

Well one could argue, if you are correct it is a bit late, one could also state, take my advice, because I am not using it or one could also be of the opinion that they disagree with your opinion.

As I have three likes and that is three more than I expected with this audience

One could also argue that when in a hole, it is best to stop digging.

[Rory Dwyer]

One could also argue that when in a hole, it is best to stop digging.

If you want to raise any discussion points regarding the thread topic then I will gladly answer those.

[tractor]

..

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and given that no one is actually raising any issues regarding the topic of the thread, I guess there is nothing left for you to do than get personal. No problem, I respect your right to an opinion.

Old Greg is right and whilst we are getting back on the topic of the thread, it's title seems to imply and actually STATES (and this is where we all came in) that if you cede control within the EAA and Conduct Regs context, that equates to a master/servant relationship in the context of IR35.

To which you say "I say it does, and by making a declaration of opting into the "Conduct Regs" you are as a consequence declaring that you have handed over predominant control of yourself and your PSC to your hirer."

Many of us disagree and you have spectacularly failed to persuade otherwise. Just because you have a criminal judgement in your favour over one part of two distinct regulations that are notoriously difficult to interpret and where the judiciary, civil or criminal regularly fail to agree and which is desperately short of case law, you think and offer it as a fait accompli because it suits your own perspective.

It is not. I see it as just another piece of FUD that agents will use to elbow contractors into opting out when they do not wish to.

And once again, there is no legal definition of a PSC. Lastly, predominant control, which seems to be a term coined by the judge in this case to clarify the meaning of 'control' is entirely different to 'Direction and control' within the meaning of IR35.