Dragonfly

[Bob Dalek]

I'd be f****d on the basis of this outcome. It blows apart advice I've taken re IR35 on a few of the gigs I've done in the past 3 years - not 99K but more than I could possibly stump up without selling my house. I wonder how they expect people to pay up in these circumstances? Could they make you sell your house etc to pay for it or would they give you time to pay it off?

They'll do whatever they want.

[The Lone Gunman]

If that was me I'd sue the AA for employment rights just to make a point. Wouldn't cost much, not much chance of winning, but two things have to be highlighted.

1) The unfairness of IR35.
2) The failure of agencies when it comes to making contract amendments.

Nothing will change until a client is made to pay.

I have proposed this "nuclear" option a number of times. The PCG line is to not push it (one of my objections to the PCG).

Further I think there is a case against the agent.
I also think there is a case to report the agent and/or the client for fraud or at least gross misrepresentation. 1 or both have entered into a contract knowing full well that the terms were not the reality and have said as much in a court of law. Open and shut case in my opinion. The PCG should be pushing this one to the hilt. If Dragonfly has got any sense he will be taking both to court on the above pretext and if he needs funding we (via the PCG if needed) should provide it.

[bellymonster]

Seems to me the taxman can make the rules up as he goes along.
The government need more dosh to get them out of this hole so I think we can expect more of this sort of cr@p in the future.

We are doomed!

[Jubber]

I can never understand this 'employee' part - take this example...

I know of a good house painter. He has been recommended and I have seen his work at a friend's house. He could substitue other painters to do the work for him. I stipulate he will only get the work if he alone does the work, only him, him alone. We agree on a daily rate over a set period of time. He has clear deliverables, to paint my house.

Because I have stipulated only he himself may paint my house, do I now have a house painter on my books? Do I have to give him sick pay, maternity leave etc? Of course not.

If I choose the paint, the brushes and tell him I want the ceiling completed before the walls ..... is he my employee. Of course not.

If I pop in halfway through the job and check it is going to my satisfaction, is he my employee? If I notice some poor 'cutting in' and ask him to just go over it again is he my employee? Of course not.

At what stage would this bloke be my employee?

[helen7]

At what stage would this bloke be my employee?

At the point he becomes an IT Consultant and is an easy target!

[BoredBloke]

I don't know about you lot, but I'm getting tempted to take the brolly option. I'm getting sick of jumping through the IR hoops all the time. I didn't start contracting for all this rubbish.

[ratewhore]

Tories will repeal IR35...





...apparently!!

[Torran]

I don't know about you lot, but I'm getting tempted to take the brolly option. I'm getting sick of jumping through the IR hoops all the time. I didn't start contracting for all this rubbish.

The pay aint great but I can sleep relatively easy at night

I'm totally IR35 caught by the way.

[Bob Dalek]

It's quite obvious (and was always going to happen eventually) that contracting outside IR35 is nearly finished. Every case like this just adds weight to the Revenue's POV. Pretty soon, it'll be impossible to argue the toss, because some (dare I say it, paid-off) judge has made a "flip a coin" decision that the Revenue's brief will parade in court as precedent.

I really never have understood the vehemency of HMRC's pursuit of IT contractors, or similar, but they have got their teeth into this and seem unlikely to ever give up. Maybe the hitherto wins for contractors in court have wound them up like 7-day clocks. It can't be the lost revenue: it's simply too small to warrant the big spend they've made to end non-IR35 work.

[Turion]

Dragonfly had a contract with the AA for many years, which must be an easy target for HMRC. A string of six or twelve month contracts at different clients would make things much harder for them, it mitigates the risk to some extent.

WHS. long contracts spanning several years greatly increase the risk. There is no doubt about it. 18 months max with plenty of shorter contracts will mitigate the risk of investigation. Basically long constantly renewed cusy contracts give a very permified look to HMRC. Easy soft target basically especially if the corresponding Ltd co has plenty of cash to loot.