Dragonfly

[ratewhore]

If he is losing everything then he has nothing more to lose as long as he can get funding.

You know my position on this and I would hope the PCG advises and supports him in going for employee rights and suing the client and agent for misrepresentation and fraud.

What about backpay for sick and holidays?

[TykeMerc]

Isn't it losing revenue overall?

Quite possibly it is on the face of it, but fear of IR35 has driven many contractors into using Umbrella companies, iffy tax avoidance schemes that will probably backfire in the long term and caused most of us to be much more conservative in our tax planning than we used to be.
Since IR35 I certainly pay more NI and Income Tax than I used to, I doubt that IR35 has proven to be a revenue losing strategy when you take all of the other factors into account.

[Epiphone]

What about backpay for sick and holidays?

He has been judged to be an employee therefore he should get the rights and privelages an employee gets. Why not claim for training, if the AA get a staff discount anywhere he should get that, the difference in price in the subbed canteen etc etc.

[Lewis]

He has been judged to be an employee therefore he should get the rights and privelages an employee gets. Why not claim for training, if the AA get a staff discount anywhere he should get that, the difference in price in the subbed canteen etc etc.

Pension!

[The Lone Gunman]

The problem with the employee rights battle is that IR35 quite clearly stated that it was only a judgement for tax purposes and could in no way reflect on employment status.
The implied contract can not be reconstructed in an employment tribunal. So all evidence to that point is moot.
That is why my nuclear option (as the PCG calls it) requires action for misrepresentation and fraud against the client, the agent and the individuals who signed the documents and the people who gave evidence.

[ratewhore]

The problem with the employee rights battle is that IR35 quite clearly stated that it was only a judgement for tax purposes and could in no way reflect on employment status.
The implied contract can not be reconstructed in an employment tribunal. So all evidence to that point is moot.

I've know this for a while but it still shocks me when I read it..!

[The Lone Gunman]

I've know this for a while but it still shocks me when I read it..!

Oh it stinks. It is possible that a decent legal mind will find a way of crossing the line, but I cant see how.

[Epiphone]

=The Lone Gunman;623264]The problem with the employee rights battle is that IR35 quite clearly stated that it was only a judgement for tax purposes and could in no way reflect on employment status.
The implied contract can not be reconstructed in an employment tribunal.

Which is why the inherent unfairness should be shouted from the rooftops to the general public. The dislike for New Labour at the moment is such that even 'fat-cat bosses' (as the Daily Mail will more than likely label us )being screwed over could garner sympathy.

[BoredBloke]

The problem with the employee rights battle is that IR35 quite clearly stated that it was only a judgement for tax purposes and could in no way reflect on employment status.
The implied contract can not be reconstructed in an employment tribunal. So all evidence to that point is moot.
That is why my nuclear option (as the PCG calls it) requires action for misrepresentation and fraud against the client, the agent and the individuals who signed the documents and the people who gave evidence.

There is only one party involved who could easily see both contracts and that is the agent. If the agent gives a pro ir35 contract to the contractor and then nullifies all the pro ir35 elements in the agent-client contract then surley some form of fraud/misrepresentation has been comitted - why should there be no come back on the agent in these cases?

[Jubber]

I wonder what funds are in his company, there has always been talk of not being able to pass on the tax bill to the individual unless they deliberately acted as if they were outside IR35 but knew they were in. If they company has no funds and Jon has a contract review showing he has reason to believe he was outside IR35 then does that mean the bill can't be passed to him?

Yep - so take heed and only keep your VAT and a couple of 100 in the company - get the rest out and spend it

Maldives anyone ?