IR35 again

[suityou01]

Given that you have IR35 lawyers one would assume you'd have IR35 friendly clauses WRT MOO and ROS.

Oh that's ok then I can do whatever I like regardless of what's in the contract. Silly me.



Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

[suityou01]

Based on your comments that you would have been inside IR35, then you MUST have failed on all three planks of the legislation. To have failed one (which I'm not convinced you would have done) and then to walk would be utterly stupid.

Therefore, since you must have failed the right of substitution test and you must have had mutuality of obligation in your contractual relationship, it's not an unreasonable assumption that they were in the contract.

Ass u me


Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

[TheFaQQer]

Ass u me


Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

OK, put it absolutely clear, Suity.

Either

1) You had a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation, and you walked away from a paying gig to nothing because you thought you were inside IR35.

or

2) You signed a contract which did not give you a right of substitution and / or had a clause which introduced mutuality of obligation into the contractual relationship.

or

3) some other situation which you haven't yet revealed.

Which of those is right?

[eek]

IR35 again

So now you profess to knowing the terms of my contract without actually having seen it?

And people should listen to you why?


Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

You only need 1 out of moo, substitution and d&c to be out of ir35 see http://www.contractoruk.com/ir35_rea...bligation.html

So both you and your ir35 lawyer believed that you had a mutual obligation and no right of substitution yet took the original contract

[DiscoStu]

OK, put it absolutely clear, Suity.

Either

1) You had a right of substitution and a lack of mutuality of obligation, and you walked away from a paying gig to nothing because you thought you were inside IR35.

or

2) You signed a contract which did not give you a right of substitution and / or had a clause which introduced mutuality of obligation into the contractual relationship.

or

3) some other situation which you haven't yet revealed.

Which of those is right?

My money's on there were no nappy changing facilities.

[northernladuk]

Well we have had two professional posts that have been discussed properly with no abuse or spam in General today. I would have put money on WWIII starting before that happened.

Ok forget that. Normal service has resumed.

[DiscoStu]

Ok forget that. Normal service has resumed.

It's General, we're allowed

[Pondlife]

The only way to properly resolve this is for Suity and DiscoStu to have a dance-off at the next CUK meetup.

I just can't see any other option.



Edit: Suity, sort out that iMinion nonsense in your sig. TIA

[DiscoStu]

The only way to properly resolve this is for Suity and DiscoStu to have a dance-off at the next CUK meetup.

I just can't see any other option.



Edit: Suity, sort out that iMinion nonsense in your sig. TIA

[suityou01]

The only way to properly resolve this is for Suity and DiscoStu to have a dance-off at the next CUK meetup.

I just can't see any other option.



Edit: Suity, sort out that iMinion nonsense in your sig. TIA

Done