IR35 again

[suityou01]

Very good.

Two of you now.

There is case law where holiday requests have been used as a pointer to direction and control.

I invited you to use google. As you are too stubborn I shall post a link for you as repeatedly requested.

One minute while I google that for you.

[suityou01]

I shudder to think if you are capable of reading the relevant parts rather than opening a fresh tulipstorm on the whole article.

[eek]

Very good.

Two of you now.

There is case law where holiday requests have been used as a pointer to direction and control.

I invited you to use google. As you are too stubborn I shall post a link for you as repeatedly requested.

One minute while I google that for you.

Tax tribunal or Employment tribunal.

Was it at a court that sets precedent which is followed subsequently or a first tier court with no subsequent appeal made...

[eek]

I shudder to think if you are capable of reading the relevant parts rather than opening a fresh tulipstorm on the whole article.

Contractor loses IR35 appeal - substitution clause viewed as

That relates to a long running contract which originally did not have a substitution clause.

They then introduced clauses to attempt to get round IR35 which I believe HMRC look down on (as would I)..

[darmstadt]

Plan B: about time to start selling ringside seats

[suityou01]

You asked me to post a link.

Now that I have it's not a good enough link

[eek]

Plan B: about time to start selling ringside seats

Sadly I wouldn't recommend them. The fight is awfully one sided...

[suityou01]

So you admit to bullying and hounding en masse?

[TheFaQQer]

I shudder to think if you are capable of reading the relevant parts rather than opening a fresh tulipstorm on the whole article.

Contractor loses IR35 appeal - substitution clause viewed as

Let's see where that says that the completion of a holiday form is enough to fail an IR35 investigation



What points did the case fail on

• original contracts stated that Shepherd would be providing the services personally, not under a ‘contract for services’
• a substitution clause was not introduced to the contract and signed by the client until several years after the contractor started work
• the client made it clear that he would not accept a substitute
• The contracts, even when amended in later years, did not reflect Shepherd’s real working relationship and he was essentially controlled by the client.
• Control of Shepherd by the client was on the same basis as for full-time employees
• Shepherd accepted whatever work was available at any given time.
• Shepherd claimed that he did not need permission for absences, but his contract during the period under investigation contradicted this.
• [he]accepted any work that filled his average 36 hours per week
• The Special Commissioner found “no compelling evidence that Mr Shepherd was in business on his own account.”

According to the CUK article on the same case

the SC said the Oracle and programming expert became an "integrated" feature of the IT department.

The key thing about having to get permission for absence is the bit that I have put in bold for you - his contract said that he had to get permission.

There were so many things in the situation that made it an IR35 fail, to imply that it's similar to your case is stretching your credibility (such as it is) somewhat.

[suityou01]

When did I ever say filling out a holiday request form in itself puts you inside IR35?