IR35 again

[suityou01]

So basically I'm wrong. Ok.

And the IR35 specialists are wrong. Meh.

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

How about you pub experts form a company offering IR35 reviews if your so much better than the current experts?

[eek]

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

Go and read the original article again.

It was not an IR35 case but an employment tribunal and so has little to nothing to do with IR35. And this is especially the case here because the claimant is trying to argue a case for being inside IR35.

in an IR35 case someone will be trying to show that they are not an employee here the person is explicitly trying to show that there are an employer or worker for that pharmacy chain. Remember what I said earlier in this thread about description and context. What you described that SAP holiday management system in a way that makes it sound like direction and control, I would describe it as something entirely different and hence would probably get an entirely different question.

Lets be honest here. You know you were a muppet over this issue at that clientco but can't admit that you are wrong. And don't deny it because this is the second time you've tried to discuss it here and in both cases most people have struggled to see what you were objecting to.

[suityou01]

You are far more coherent when you are sober so I shall seize this opportunity.

You have completely missed the point of why I posted the article. This lady had an IR35 proof contract (none exist but I'm being tongue in cheek) and managed on her own to prove an employment relationship.

So if she can, how easy would it be for hector lest we take specific precautions.

It may not surprise you but I take the word of my paid lawyers as the right version.

[eek]

You are far more coherent when you are sober so I shall seize this opportunity.

You have completely missed the point of why I posted the article. This lady had an IR35 proof contract (none exist but I'm being tongue in cheek) and managed on her own to prove an employment relationship.

So if she can, how easy would it be for hector lest we take specific precautions.

It may not surprise you but I take the word of my paid lawyers as the right version.

No she merely managed to prove that she was party to a far weaker worker relationship which gives both far fewer rights and is nowhere near enough for HMRC to win an IR35 case.

So if she with as much documentation to hand as possible cannot prove an employment relationship why do you think HMRC with no documentation to hand will be able to show the far more difficult to achieve employment relationship.

Given the number of tax tribunals which HMRC is losing against agencies providing shop assistants and care workers on a self employed basis to screw said workers and avoid NI contributions I really think you have taken a single article regarding 1 minor loss and tried to turn a minor ant hill into Mount Everest.

Regardless of what your lawyers say I'm not concerned about this. I know all my previous clientco's would fight alongside me to prove I was not their employee, I think the fact you think yours won't reflects more on you then anything else.

[tractor]

...

So basically I'm wrong. Ok.

And the IR35 specialists are wrong. Meh.

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

How about you pub experts form a company offering IR35 reviews if your so much better than the current experts?

If this relates to IR35 cases, I must have missed one....case reference please or are you just repeating the oft quoted contractor urban myths??

If the cases to which you refer are employment cases, then move along, nothing to see here; they are irrelevant for IR35 purposes.

[TheFaQQer]

Thank F* I'm retired for over 6 years. Up yours HMRC!

Woo.

Sent from my office window using carrier pidegon

What's a pidegon?

[mudskipper]

What's a pidegon?

It's pronounced piddy-gon

It's like a polygon, but with pigeons instead of parrots.

[TheFaQQer]

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

References?

[eek]

References?

I think he is referring to the original Employment tribunal that the post he links to in the first post talks about.

The fact it:-

1) Failed to prove employment merely the far easier working criteria
2) was an employment tribunal relating to an entirely different issue
3) is not a tax tribunal and therefore sets no precedent whatsoever

seems to have missed him by in his attempt to justify the that caused him to be tulipcanned from his last contract.

[eek]

Interesting, 11 odd pages of bitch slapping and nobody has really grasped what is actually important about this case.

So now if you get caught by IR35 you can claim rights/benefits from your now deemed employer. So things like Holiday pay, minimum wage, Working hours directive all come into play. This could be good in the sense that clients now have a vested interest in ensuring you are clear of IR35, or it could be quite bad for contractors as companys clear the decks.

This is a pretty important ruling and shifts the balance of responsibility back to the client.

No it doesn't. The decision comes from an employment tribunal which is not a tax tribunal.

And there was an example from years back where someone lost an IR35 tribunal (he was an employee) where the subsequent employment tribunal found that he wasn't.

Different tribunals look at different things, and can come up with very different answers based on the same evidence.