Dragonfly

[DaveB]

I think the thing to watch for here is if the cost of IR35 insurance - the ones that pay out if you lose the case - goes up significantly.

If it does then the guys supplying them obviously believe IR35 is now a more serious threat than it was before.

[ratewhore]

Just out of interest, how does this work:

The Commissioner agreed that the 'very limited right of substitution is not inconsistent with employment and does not point strongly away from it'.

Last time I was a permie, I don't think I had a limited RoS, so how can it be 'not inconsistent with employment'?

[DimPrawn]

Just out of interest, how does this work:



Last time I was a permie, I don't think I had a limited RoS, so how can it be 'not inconsistent with employment'?

The way I see it on RoS, is that a permie cannot EVER substitue. If the client would accept a sub, after vetting for correct skills and business acumen, qualifications and experience, then you cannot be an employee.

So unless the client says no way, not ever under any circumstances would we accept a sub, you should be deemd not an employee.

[Incognito]

Hahaha! The lad has a near 100k tax bill to find. Wonder if he took out a CTD? Unless Im mistaken, the only appeal would be to the HoL. Can you see PCGfunding that for him too?

I disagree about the decision being 'entirely' consistent with case law. Case law has actually built up a number of sound defences for IR35. And that's before one even considers the inconsistency between SC decision.

After having slagged off the MP boys, sounds to me like your running scared because Hector is now gunning for you too.

Be afraid, be VERY afraid! You're next, pal.

Nice style. I hope you lose your home you twat.

[The Lone Gunman]

The way I see it on RoS, is that a permie cannot EVER substitue. If the client would accept a sub, after vetting for correct skills and business acumen, qualifications and experience, then you cannot be an employee.

So unless the client says no way, not ever under any circumstances would we accept a sub, you should be deemd not an employee.

Depends how you see substitution. Is swapping shifts with someone to get an extra day off using a sub? When I was a shelf stacker at Asda I had to work Saturdays. My mate did Fridays. We sometimes did Friday and Saturday when the other wanted a weekend off. I would argue that this was substitution. So therefore permies can provide subs. Lets not do the argument, just accept that I may have a point and keep this thread on track.

[ratewhore]

Well there's certainly an argument now that there is just as much risk in an offshore setup than a UK Ltd setup...

[Lewis]

Well there's certainly an argument now that there is just as much risk in an offshore setup than a UK Ltd setup...

I guess other things to consider are not doing long contracts (to reduce potential bill if lost) and closing company every few years during work breaks (to close door on future investigation).

Out of interest is there any case of someone having more than one contract challenged or do HMRC "do you" for one and then move on to someone else?

[Lockhouse]

Out of interest is there any case of someone having more than one contract challenged or do HMRC "do you" for one and then move on to someone else?

I had five contracts from 4 different clients investigated at the same time. All were found to be outside.

[malvolio]

No he didn't.

He decided as an issue of FACT that the RoS was a sham (not the word used) and that therefore he was allowed to ignore it when applying the case law to establish whether the guy was employeelike.

ISTM that he was perfectly entitled to do this. Whether his ruleing in fact was right or not is irrelevent (because it cannot be appealed unless it is peverse), but having found that it was, the original judge did not not ignore case law on the issue.

I told you all this before the appeal went forward and you ignored me. A High court judge has just told you the same thing and you are ignoring him.

Are you going to ignore the appeal court judge as well when he tells you the same thing?

tim

Why me? I'm only an interested observer; PCG has rather bettter qualified legal advisers than me, after all. Don't make this personal, it doesn't help anyone.

You also ignore the D&C ruling which is perverse and the range of things Dragonfly don't get that permies do, which is also perverse. If the intention of the commisioner is to find the "right" answer regardless, he will be pretty sure to select which bits of reality he uses to build his notional contract. I don't think anyone would say that was a good idea.

[SizeZero]

I had five contracts from 4 different clients investigated at the same time. All were found to be outside.

Out of curiosity, have they left you alone since?