IR35 again

[TheFaQQer]

The problem is he missed one.

Really?

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

Let me explain.

MyCo has a contract with the agency. Then the agency has a contract with the end hirer.

You assume the clauses in your contract with the agency are mirrored across.

So for example let's say the agency don't mirror your substitution clause. Because the client says they want it taken out. Again this is hypothetical.

So along comes HMRC and asks the end hirer if your substitution clause is enforceable.

Your destiny is in the hands of someone working for Clientco that may not give a toss or understand what is happening.

So you've filled out your annual leave request and Clientco demonstrates your substitution clause is a sham.

Then you're hanging on by a thread hoping and praying MOO doesn't test positive.

So now do you see why a piece of paper with some clauses on is a flimsy defence?

Did you know what was in the contract between agency and client, or were you just thinking that it might be that way?

[TheFaQQer]

Do you have to fill in a form to request a day off sick?

I'm with suity on this one. Just letting them know you won't be around should be sufficient. They can always record it as 2 weeks worth of 'sick days' if they like.

If the client told me that I needed to complete a form for a planned absence, I would

• Communicate the dates that I was unavailable to the client
• Offer to provide an alternative individual to work those days
• Out of politeness, ensure that the system was updated to record that I would not be present

I don't see completing a form as direction and control from the client. Even if it was a clear indicator that there was direction and control, there are two arguments that I feel are generally easier to argue in an IR35 defence than this.

Assuming I had no other work lined up elsewhere, what I absolutely would not do would be to walk away from a paying client to the bench on such a flimsy premise.

[suityou01]

FTFY.

Don't forget he walked away when asked to fill in the form. Suity didn't stay to find out what the client would do when he took time off without the form being filled in...

No, the contract was terminated.

[suityou01]

If the client told me that I needed to complete a form for a planned absence, I would

• Communicate the dates that I was unavailable to the client
• Offer to provide an alternative individual to work those days
• Out of politeness, ensure that the system was updated to record that I would not be present

I don't see completing a form as direction and control from the client. Even if it was a clear indicator that there was direction and control, there are two arguments that I feel are generally easier to argue in an IR35 defence than this.

Assuming I had no other work lined up elsewhere, what I absolutely would not do would be to walk away from a paying client to the bench on such a flimsy premise.

Then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.

The system have two outcomes. Approved or denied.

Please think before typing your response as I'm growing weary of repeatedly explaining the basics.

[eek]

IR35 again

No, the contract was terminated.

So it went

Client: fill in this form
Suity: no
Client: here is the door

Somehow I think there is slightly more to it than that.

Was this the straw that broke the client's back?

[TheFaQQer]

Then you are either illiterate or stupid or both.

The system have two outcomes. Approved or denied.

Please think before typing your response as I'm growing weary of repeatedly explaining the basics.

system has / systems have - maybe you should answer that call from the pot, eh?

I'm not looking for approval or rejection from the system - I repeat, I would make sure that the system [which records dates that people are unavailable] is updated to reflect my planned absence.

Why were you so sure that you no longer had the right of substitution that was in the contract?

[TheFaQQer]

No, the contract was terminated.

Were you direct, or via an agency? Are you a PCG+ member?

[suityou01]

system has / systems have - maybe you should answer that call from the pot, eh?

I'm not looking for approval or rejection from the system - I repeat, I would make sure that the system [which records dates that people are unavailable] is updated to reflect my planned absence.

Why were you so sure that you no longer had the right of substitution that was in the contract?

Well now. Any client that refuses to listen to reason, negotiate or discuss these matters I do not trust to support my substitution clause if HMRC if they come a knocking.

Someone earlier here said the Clientco could tell HMRC to bugger off. This is typical of the kind of ignorance shown in this thread.

[eek]

Well now. Any client that refuses to listen to reason, negotiate or discuss these matters I do not trust to support my substitution clause if HMRC if they come a knocking.

Someone earlier here said the Clientco could tell HMRC to bugger off. This is typical of the kind of ignorance shown in this thread.

And no its not. As I have been at clientco's when HMRC have asked regarding previous contractors and that is exactly what both the departmental head and HR said to HMRC...

Then again those contractors were competent and liked by that clientco....

[suityou01]

And no its not. As I have been at clientco's when HMRC have asked regarding previous contractors and that is exactly what both the departmental head and HR said to HMRC...

Then again those contractors were competent and liked by that clientco....

Fool. HMRC have powers.