IR35 win for HMRC

[VectraMan]

I guess nobody pays attention to the news part of CUK:

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/003361.html

[VectraMan]

In the first of three determining factors, Special Commissioner John Jones said IR35 should apply as “sufficient obligation [existed] with each contract for STW to provide work and pay the agreed rate.”

Both worker and client knew the project’s lifetime, and knew that the skills ICL was supplying were unavailable in-house, meaning there was a mutual “expectation” of renewal, Jones said.

So offering specialist skills that aren't available in house makes you an employee. Hmmm.

[Let-Me-In]

I guess nobody pays attention to the news part of CUK:

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/003361.html

The guy representing HMRC was called Peter Death....how appropriate...

[The Lone Gunman]

Having read this on Shout99 I suspect this may get appealed. Depends who is funding it.

The judgement does seem rather perverse.

Though once again it was the agent - client contract that swung it.
We may see someone sue the agent and claim employee benefits from one of these one day.

[malvolio]

Way too late - this has been running around the PCG fora for a week now. Basically the guy was screwed by the client, who reneged on the contents of a confirmation of arrangements letter they originally signed which blew his RoS.

The bigger whoopsie though is that the agency (Spring) had issued a contract with a clear RoS clause to the contractor that was not and could not be supported by their contract with the client.

As for appealing it, it's up to Island Consulting -after four years of grief already, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have the heart to battle on for another three...

[Burdock]

The bigger whoopsie though is that the agency (Spring) had issued a contract with a clear RoS clause to the contractor that was not and could not be supported by their contract with the client.

Has he not got a case for sueing Spring for not accurately reflecting the terms of his contract with them, in their contract with the client?

[Epiphone]

Quite why the commercial relationship between agency and client is relevant still escapes me. I know why HMRC go down that route but it wouldn't happen in another commercial field.

Mal: to save trawling through the PCG fora what's the general consensus there?

[malvolio]

Mal: to save trawling through the PCG fora what's the general consensus there?

General feelings are that we should screw Spring for faulty contracts and support Island through the appeals process. However, it's not up to the PCG to do either, and the management are not taking any immediate action.

[Cowboy Bob]

The bigger whoopsie though is that the agency (Spring) had issued a contract with a clear RoS clause to the contractor that was not and could not be supported by their contract with the client.

Worth noting here that Spring are PCG affiliates...

[VectraMan]

Quite why the commercial relationship between agency and client is relevant still escapes me. I know why HMRC go down that route but it wouldn't happen in another commercial field.

I agree. If you used your ROS and the agency-client contract didn't allow it, the agent would be in breach of both contracts. How a contract you're not party to can be used against you like this is beyond me. But then common sense and law don't always agree.