IR35 again

[vwdan]

The insurance is an interesting thing. It's quite unique. Being insured against being investigated.

I think the attitude on here is complacent and arrogant.

It's like being insured against being investigated by the police for traffic offences and then deliberately running red lights.

No, it's more like being insured against the exceptionally low chance of being investigated by the police for a badly defined and often untested 'offence' that may or may not stand up in court, and then continuing to be careful without spending every single day pouring over what it means and falling out with people over it.

I sincerely believe I operate outside of IR35, but I'm not going to kick off at minor details and I'm sure as hell not going to lose a good gig over it. I sent an e-mail to my PM the other day saying "Just to let you know, I've got nothing to do on Monday or Tuesday so I'm going to take a few days off". On the Monday he replied to an e-mail I was CC'd into saying "Dan's on Annual Leave today". Do I give a tulip? Do I ****.

[TheFaQQer]

The insurance is an interesting thing. It's quite unique. Being insured against being investigated.

I think the attitude on here is complacent and arrogant.

It's like being insured against being investigated by the police for traffic offences and then deliberately running red lights.

Not quite - you are comparing a clearly defined illegality (running a red light) with an ambiguous piece of legislation that isn't fit for purpose.

As qdos have confirmed on CUK, those that have TLC insurance with them tend to almost all be low risk cases of investigation, so your analogy falls down even further - the typical user of their insurance policy is in no way akin to the deliberate law-breaker to which you refer.

Qdos also have a success rate of something like 1300:3, which you wouldn't get with your ridiculous comparison.

Anyway, back to the question - can you provide more than one case where an IR35 tribunal has ruled that completing a form has been a clear indicator of direction and control?

[suityou01]

Our very own Malvolio even says it is

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...-off-ir35.html

[tractor]

...

Our very own Malvolio even says it is

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...-off-ir35.html

And that is your justification?

I bet it took you longer to find that post than it would to link your 'case law'. Unless the case law is a figment of your imagination.

[vwdan]

Our very own Malvolio even says it is

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...-off-ir35.html

No, he says

If you need to have permsission to take the time off, that is a bad thing for IR35 - that's the D&C element

Being asked to use a standard system for resource management isn't the same as having to ask permission that can be denied.

[TheFaQQer]

Our very own Malvolio even says it is

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...-off-ir35.html

No he doesn't. Six years ago, he said that if you need permission, then there is a measure of control.

You specifically referenced

And case law where filling in leave requests has been used to prove D&C never happened. Meh.

So, please can you provide one or more than one case where the completion of a holiday form in itself is enough of an indicator of employment that the IR35 case was won by HMRC?

[tractor]

...

No he doesn't. Six years ago, he said that if you need permission, then there is a measure of control.

You specifically referenced

So, please can you provide one or more than one case where the completion of a holiday form in itself is enough of an indicator of employment that the IR35 case was won by HMRC?

You have asked him 4 times, I asked him at least twice, he knows of no such thing, it's just another urban myth.

There are 13 pages of people explaining to him why he is wrong and he still doesn't get it. This is the reason he posted it here instead of Legal or Contracts.

Attention seeker

[OwlHoot]

No, it's more like being insured against the exceptionally low chance of being investigated by the police for a badly defined and often untested 'offence' ...

or more like being insured against litigation by a dotty and unstable neighbour obsessed with garden hedges.

[suityou01]

The standard form had an approval path. This means an such notification could be denied.

Is this not enough of an identification of D&C.

The number of pages of people ganging up are not enough to persuade me, no.

The fact that people aren't asking more questions about working practices is alarming.

It seems you are happy enough with a subs clause and an insurance policy.

I do rather hope this laissez faire attitude doesn't catch anyone out.

[eek]

I do rather hope this laissez faire attitude doesn't catch anyone out.

It might (although personally I think HMRC would run a mile from anyone posting on this thread once we passed it to our lawyers) but at least we can put food on our tables without travelling half way across Europe and subjecting ourselves to the risk of annoying German Hector...

You have got all your paperwork in place haven't you and confirmed what religion you are.

And no I'm not happy with just a substitution clause. Thankfully I have a cast iron example of MOO on my side in both recent contracts...