Just to add to the doom, two big IR35 losses

[Xenophon]

Whoops ....looks like the flood gates will open now. Seems to me that the IR have finally found the chink in the armour.

Depressing, ain't it?



If anyone has some positive news on IR35, feel free to post it here:

<space reserved for good news for contractors>

Thanks...

[DimPrawn]

Depressing, ain't it?



If anyone has some positive news on IR35, feel free to post it here:

<space reserved for good news for contractors>

Thanks...

The good news is that 2008 will be so bad, there will be no income from IT Contracting, hence no tax and so IR35 will not apply.

HTH

[Ardesco]

Whoops ....looks like the flood gates will open now. Seems to me that the IR have finally found the chink in the armour.

If you look at the detail in the cases they had some pretty big holes. The most worrying thing to come out of this is the fact that they looked at the contract between the agency and the end client, and disregarded the contract between the agency and the contractor when it suited them.

The SC also said he didn't belive that the substitution clause was valid despite a letter from the AA saying it was valid.

I would say partly stupid contractor for representing himself, and maybe a biased SC (How can you disregard evidence saying you don't belive it?? It is evidence it is not the job of the SC to pick and choose the evidence he is going belive...). It is interesting to note that both losses hate the same SC presiding over the case...

[Denny]

Did he have to pay the HRMC costs then ?

I'm not sure, I was guessing to justify the figure which does seem high in the absence of costs as well. The figure is not broken down so we don't really know.

[Bumfluff]

The good news is that an IR35 investigator was found in a field with a sheep, read into that what you want.

[malvolio]

The really good news is that both cases may well get appealed on points of law. There's some weird rule that the commissioners' verdicts can only be challenged if they have made an error in the application of the extant case law, which in they appear to have done at several points (most notably by ignoring the RoS case law that it only has to exist as a right). So I don't think it's dead yet.

[SueEllen]

The really good news is that both cases may well get appealed on points of law. There's some weird rule that the commissioners' verdicts can only be challenged if they have made an error in the application of the extant case law, which in they appear to have done at several points (most notably by ignoring the RoS case law that it only has to exist as a right). So I don't think it's dead yet.

This time I hope the contractors involved employ some lawyers and don't represent themselves.

[Bumfluff]

Cant we sue the HRMC for something ?

[Diver]

DS23 8,146
zeitghost 6,835
TheFaQQer 6,373
BrowneIssue 5,433
Diver 5,374
cailin maith 5,245
BrilloPad 4,058
NickFitz 3,668



Pitiful posting today BI

[oracleslave]

DS23 8,146
zeitghost 6,835
TheFaQQer 6,373
BrowneIssue 5,433
Diver 5,374
cailin maith 5,245
BrilloPad 4,058
NickFitz 3,668



Pitiful posting today BI

Try TPD for drivel.

HTH.