IR35 again

[eek]

This is precisely the kind of glib complacent arrogance and stupidity that made me start the thread.

I spun this past my IR35 lawyers who said don't do it under any circumstances.

So then I could ignore them, invalidate my insurance, breach my contracted term and bare my arse to hector but I still have a brain.


Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

Who are your IR35 lawyers?

I just want to ensure I use a different set next time around

[mudskipper]

Or declare yourself inside IR35 and take the tax hit, if you were so convinced that you were inside IR35 on all three points.

Instead, your brain (having allowed you to sign a contract which didn't give you the right of substitution and included a mutuality of obligation clause in it) said that you were better off leaving and earning nothing than staying and earning something.

Or don't declare yourself inside, and put aside the tax liability for the unlikely event that you do get investigated. Keep invoicing whilst looking for another 'outside' gig.

[eek]

The other bit I'm trying to work out is how did Suity know the Consultants were not filling in the holiday form. I've seen on numerous occasions managers / admin types at consultancies filling in forms on behalf of others..

[TheFaQQer]

Or don't declare yourself inside, and put aside the tax liability for the unlikely event that you do get investigated. Keep invoicing whilst looking for another 'outside' gig.

Yep, that would be my approach to be honest.

Once I have the insurance in place and am covered based on the contract contents, I'm not sure that I'd bother asking the insurance company any more questions.

[suityou01]

Or declare yourself inside IR35 and take the tax hit, if you were so convinced that you were inside IR35 on all three points.

Instead, your brain (having allowed you to sign a contract which didn't give you the right of substitution and included a mutuality of obligation clause in it) said that you were better off leaving and earning nothing than staying and earning something.

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

[suityou01]

The other bit I'm trying to work out is how did Suity know the Consultants were not filling in the holiday form. I've seen on numerous occasions managers / admin types at consultancies filling in forms on behalf of others..

I asked them.

HTH


Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

[suityou01]

Yep, that would be my approach to be honest.

Once I have the insurance in place and am covered based on the contract contents, I'm not sure that I'd bother asking the insurance company any more questions.

Utter nonsense. If you knowingly do something stupid and then expect the insurance to cough up, what do you think will happen?

I'm very worried about some of the "advice" being handed out here.



Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

[DiscoStu]

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

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

[fullyautomatix]

Riddle me this. You start in a contract believing there is no d@c.

The contract expressly states that there is no d&c.

Then Clientco try and exercise some d&c and I flatly refuse and so the contract is terminated.

Now, slowly tell me how I was under d&c.




Sent from my iMinion using Tapatalk

Go Suity !!

[TheFaQQer]

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

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.