an IR35 example for discussion

[northernladuk]

Once again, you miss the bigger and more important points. Looking at the facts, does anyone think that a Court will hold Joe as an "hidden employee" of the client? It is very clear that Joe is operating a business and the client is a business client and not his employer. The fact that HMRC has a set of guidance/tool that spits out a "hidden employee inside IR35" determination in contradiction of the actual legal position is the point.

I have heard people on here say "working practice trumps contract" but the overall question of "is this individual in business on his own account" trumps working practice.

The answer is no. You can have multiple contracts and IR35 will consider each.

Do you remember the Business Entity Tests?

I miss the point because. I just can't see what you are trying to prove while you are thrashing blindly about. You are trying to make arguments up to convince MPs but are still asking ill researched questions like T&S one in the other thread.

[RonBW]

A director IS an employee of that company.

https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself

No they aren't - they are an officer of the company.

If you are an employee then you must be paid NMW and get employment rights - which means that you would either need to not work full time, lie about the hours that you do work, or pay yourself more than the basic rate threshold which is not tax efficient.

Granted, there won't be an investigation because you aren't going to report yourself, but just because you're a director doesn't mean that you are an employee of the company. I am a non executive director of more than one company, yet I am an employee of none of them.

[breaktwister]

The answer is no. You can have multiple contracts and IR35 will consider each.

Are you really that stupid that I need to explain my points multiple times? The approach that you have just outlined is AN INCORRECT LEGAL TEST. Read some case law and you will realise.

I admit I don't know about all aspects of tax and employment law, but I know enough to ask for help in filling in the gaps.

You on the other hand, don't know half as much as you make out so you should pipe down sometimes.

Let me ask you this - do you think Joe is in business on his own account - do you think a Court would deem him to be an employee of the client?

[breaktwister]

Do you remember the Business Entity Tests?

No I don't but it seems they were withdrawn. They were probably incorrect if HMRC latest guidance is anything to go by. Your point is?

[RonBW]

Are you really that stupid that I need to explain my points multiple times? The approach that you have just outlined is AN INCORRECT LEGAL TEST. Read some case law and you will realise.

Please provide a link to case law which supports your assertion.

Thanks

[northernladuk]

No I don't but it seems they were withdrawn. They were probably incorrect if HMRC latest guidance is anything to go by. Your point is?

Read them and understand what they were trying to do. It's relevant to your point. You can't come on here with your stupid ideas and not have a clue about what's gone on before. The number of times you've posted some rubbish and someone has referred you to something else that's related/already done/exists I thought you'd have learnt by now.

[MrMarkyMark]

Are you really that stupid that I need to explain my points multiple times? The approach that you have just outlined is AN INCORRECT LEGAL TEST. Read some case law and you will realise.

I admit I don't know about all aspects of tax and employment law, but I know enough to ask for help in filling in the gaps.

You on the other hand, don't know half as much as you make out so you should pipe down sometimes.

Let me ask you this - do you think Joe is in business on his own account - do you think a Court would deem him to be an employee of the client?

You are just proving yourself to be beyond a total muppet now.

Please desist.

Thanks

[northernladuk]

Let me ask you this - do you think Joe is in business on his own account - do you think a Court would deem him to be an employee of the client?

Yes and yes.

[LondonManc]

You must not have read much of the case law, or understood it, if you think that a single role-based analysis is enough to determine employment status, especially when a contractor has multiple clients, either concurrently or within a short period of time.

IR35 is tested on a contract-by-contract basis though - you could have two concurrent contracts, one inside and one outside.

That said, proving that you are in business of your own account is also good; this is a massive grey area and Joe is in a very awkward position. Have you checked if there are any precedents for this and what the case law dictated the outcome/determination to be?

[SueEllen]

Are you really that stupid that I need to explain my points multiple times? The approach that you have just outlined is AN INCORRECT LEGAL TEST. Read some case law and you will realise.

I admit I don't know about all aspects of tax and employment law, but I know enough to ask for help in filling in the gaps.

You on the other hand, don't know half as much as you make out so you should pipe down sometimes.

Let me ask you this - do you think Joe is in business on his own account - do you think a Court would deem him to be an employee of the client?

You still don't get it do you?

Employment law and tax law aren't completely aligned in the various UK legal jurisdictions.

So in the UK an employment tribunal and court can determine that you whether you are employee, worker or whatever, but HMRC can make a different determination.