IR35 Drivel

[suityou01]

So once again I need to bring up

as at no point was he permanent. The case goes from project work outside IR35 to standard work (possibly inside IR35) while still remaining a contractor...

Well either I can deduce :

You do not know what IR35 is or
You cannot read and understand case law.
You cannot understand the simple premises I have spelt out in simple language about the dangers of going from contract to perm in regards to IR35.

Or combinations of the above.

In any of the above cases you are clearly NCOTBAC.

HTH

[suityou01]

I do actually confess to being dumstruck by the utter stupidity of your comments Eek.

So here we have a piece of case law, where a contractor was hauled inside of IR35 by a tribunal because they proved that there was a change in relationship. Yet he was never permanently employed.

The fact that changing from contractor to permie is a much starker change in relationship, and combined with this case law provides a concrete argument for exactly what I am saying.

I don't think anyone can really be that stupid so I have to conclude for my own sanity that you are just trolling.

HTH BIVVVVVVMDI

[SueEllen]

Well either I can deduce :

You do not know what IR35 is or
You cannot read and understand case law.
You cannot understand the simple premises I have spelt out in simple language about the dangers of going from contract to perm in regards to IR35.

Or combinations of the above.

In any of the above cases you are clearly NCOTBAC.

HTH

That case law was over a contractor not someone going from being a contractor to a permie.

In theory HRMC could argue that someone going from a contract via a closed company to the same permie role was caught by IR35 on their previous contract, but I doubt people and companies are as stupid to make the roles exactly the same.

[suityou01]

That case law was over a contractor not someone going from being a contractor to a permie.

In theory HRMC could argue that someone going from a contract via a closed company to the same permie role was caught by IR35 on their previous contract, but I doubt people and companies are as stupid to make the roles exactly the same.

Change

in

relationship.

Key phrase.

Wanna go again?

[eek]

Well either I can deduce :

You do not know what IR35 is or
You cannot read and understand case law.
You cannot understand the simple premises I have spelt out in simple language about the dangers of going from contract to perm in regards to IR35.

Or combinations of the above.

In any of the above cases you are clearly NCOTBAC.

HTH\

All I see there is incompetent selective cutting and pasting.... This was the bits I picked out when I first read the case law in 2012...

Judge Howard Nolan ruled in a Bristol Tax Tribunal heard on 24 and 25 October 2011 that IR35 did not apply for the first three years of the contract, but after that Spencer had then taken on all of the characteristics of an employee

as

Control was limited up until the end of 2003, when Spencer “ceased to be engaged for identified projects” and was in reality more controlled by the client

and

from 2004 it became clear that Allianz wanted Spencer’s services permanently. It no longer engaged him for projects, the tribunal said.

Do you actually have any case law of somewhere where the person moved from project based contract work into a full time job (with the same company) and HMRC sought income tax under IR35 successfully for the project based period (which they failed to do in your example)... All you so far have shown is non project based contracts may be caught by IR35...

[SueEllen]

Change

in

relationship.

Key phrase.

Wanna go again?

Yes I will go again.

The case law is only directly applicable to contractors, any conclusions made about those who change from contract to permie are just guesswork. However as IR35 stands if you go from contract to permie in the same company if the role looks the same then HRMC could question you over IR35.

[suityou01]

All I see there is incompetent selective cutting and pasting.... This was the bits I picked out when I first read the case law in 2012...


as

and


Do you actually have any case law of somewhere where the person moved from project based contract work into a full time job (with the same company) and HMRC sought income tax successfully for the project based period... All you so far have shown is non project based contracts may be caught by IR35...

Oh so you really are this stupid.

OK let's see.

You are working for a company as a contractor for 3 years. Then you switch to perm. Hector investigates (purely by chance). Hector notes that you had a contract relationship prior to going perm.

Hector then establishes that the employment relationship existed before the contractural relationship change, and there was in fact a relationship change as described in the case law presented.

So the case law applies to a period where the defendant was in a contract. Forget about the permie bit as that's outside of IR35.

So what I am saying is that if you overtly change your relationship from customer to employer, Hector can and would try to prove this was the case while you were in a contract. It should not take much for someone such as yourself to see this as a strong possibility.

Let's take a parallel example to try to elaborate, as case law isn't doing the trick.

You are married. You then get divorced and married someone else. But you cheated on the first wife with the second wife. OK you are now married, but during this spell your relationship with person B changed from platonic and hence you became a philanderer.

So if you are working as a contractor, your relationship changes to that of an employee like status, and then you actually become an employee of the same company it stands to reason Hector would take a second look in an investigation. The terms outlined in the case law, could be used in a court of law to prove you were IR35 inside.

[suityou01]

Yes I will go again.

The case law is only directly applicable to contractors, any conclusions made about those who change from contract to permie are just guesswork. However as IR35 stands if you go from contract to permie in the same company if the role looks the same then HRMC could question you over IR35.

If you are performing a service, as a contractor, and then become permanently employed, performing the same or similar services then this is a pointer to IR35 as you could have been employed from the start.

Is precisely my point.

[eek]

Yes I will go again.

The case law is only directly applicable to contractors, any conclusions made about those who change from contract to permie are just guesswork. However as IR35 stands if you go from contract to permie in the same company if the role looks the same then HRMC could question you over IR35.

But based on that case law only if you cannot show identified projects based work.

[suityou01]

But based on that case law only if you cannot show identified projects based work.

Er. No. Ted. There was a lot more in there. Can I suggest printing the article out in big font, and reading using a ruler under the line you are currently reading. Try not to move your lips though.