IR35 again

[suityou01]

Are they asking or telling?

[TheFaQQer]

Anyway, back to the question - can you provide more than one case where an IR35 tribunal has ruled that completing a form has been a clear indicator of direction and control?

Your example so far showed a contractor who fulfilled their contractual obligations by asking for permission to take time off from their contract of service. Is there an example that applies to a contractor who was engaged in a contract for services, who showed that they were inside IR35 because they completed an absence form?

[suityou01]

This I cannot provide. Nor did I sighed I could.

IR35 has 3 core tests so to suggest one would fail all 3 on this alone is preposterous, but you already know that.

I said completing a holiday REQUEST form is an indicator of D&C.

I provided a link as requested.

So you are deliberately being a prick.

[eek]

This I cannot provide. Nor did I sighed I could.

IR35 has 3 core tests so to suggest one would fail all 3 on this alone is preposterous, but you already know that.

I said completing a holiday REQUEST form is an indicator of D&C.

I provided a link as requested.

So you are deliberately being a prick.

But that isn't a link which shows holiday requests are an indicator of D&C. It was WRITTEN into the contract that he had to ask for approval before taking a holiday....

[cojak]

I think you're going have to agree to disagree on this one guys, else this is going to go on and on and on...

[TheFaQQer]

So you are deliberately being a prick.

Is it your sole intention to hound me off this board with your hurtful, inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory remarks?

[TheFaQQer]

I said completing a holiday REQUEST form is an indicator of D&C.

What you actually said was

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

You were then asked to provide documentary evidence to support that claim.

I provided a link as requested.

You linked to a story about someone who was contracted to provide their individual services, and had a clause in the contract which made it obligatory for him to get approval. The contractor did not have a right of substitution, and was part and parcel of the organisation. For some reason, you think that this supports your case, when it bears absolutely no relevance to it.

[tractor]

...

So you admit to bullying and hounding en masse?

By post #5 you were calling people thick, before long you are calling them a prick.

/shrug.

The link you provided was not evidence of case law supporting your argument, far from it.

[mudskipper]

I think you're going have to agree to disagree on this one guys, else this is going to go on and on and on until I ban you all.

FTFY

[TheFaQQer]

I think you're going have to agree to disagree on this one guys, else this is going to go on and on and on until I realise that there's a "Lock Thread" button I could use

FTFY