Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
So no income is better than the very small possibility of being found to be IR35 caught and paying extra tax? Sounds like a pyrrhic victory...
160 contractors all flouting the rules.
In my, ahem, "exit interview", the HR lady said "But you are under direction and control".
So all it would take is for HMRC to call them up and ask if I could supply a substitute. They say no. The substitution clause then becomes a sham. That combined with being part and parcel and I would have been IR35 caught for sure.
This was independently assessed.
I have always operated outside IR35 and gone to pains to do so. If I find the client insufferably ignorant, obnoxious, pig headed and stubborn then too right I'd rather sit on my derriere in the garden.
In my, ahem, "exit interview", the HR lady said "But you are under direction and control".
So all it would take is for HMRC to call them up and ask if I could supply a substitute. They say no. The substitution clause then becomes a sham. That combined with being part and parcel and I would have been IR35 caught for sure.
This was independently assessed.
I have always operated outside IR35 and gone to pains to do so. If I find the client insufferably ignorant, obnoxious, pig headed and stubborn then too right I'd rather sit on my derriere in the garden.
HTH
Correction; the HR manager. Have you ever met one that isn't 'insufferably ignorant, obnoxious, pig headed and stubborn'?
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014
In my, ahem, "exit interview", the HR lady said "But you are under direction and control".
So all it would take is for HMRC to call them up and ask if I could supply a substitute. They say no. The substitution clause then becomes a sham. That combined with being part and parcel and I would have been IR35 caught for sure.
This was independently assessed.
I have always operated outside IR35 and gone to pains to do so. If I find the client insufferably ignorant, obnoxious, pig headed and stubborn then too right I'd rather sit on my derriere in the garden.
HTH
Fairy nuff. Nice weather for sitting in garden too.
In my, ahem, "exit interview", the HR lady said "But you are under direction and control".
So all it would take is for HMRC to call them up and ask if I could supply a substitute. They say no. The substitution clause then becomes a sham. That combined with being part and parcel and I would have been IR35 caught for sure.
This was independently assessed.
I have always operated outside IR35 and gone to pains to do so. If I find the client insufferably ignorant, obnoxious, pig headed and stubborn then too right I'd rather sit on my derriere in the garden.
HTH
The thing is, as you've just proved, you were already under direction and control. You've gained nothing by leaving. Have you declared the income already received for that contract caught by IR35 and paid 95% of it as salary?
Comment