The Decision Tool :)

[eek]

Wheres the bit about correcting work in your own time?

All I got was this (for my last gig)


Which of these describes you best?
The worker
Has the worker already started this particular engagement for the end client?
Yes
How does the worker provide their services to the end client?
As a limited company
Is the worker or their business an office holder for the end client?
No
During this engagement has the worker's business arranged for someone else to do the work instead?
No - it's never happened
Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead?
Yes
Would the worker's business have to pay the person who did the work instead of them?
Yes

did you answer

Would the end client accept the worker's business sending someone else to do this work instead? truthfully?

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

[pscont]

Playing with it without the RoS clause I managed to get 2 out of 3 outside results. So it is not too bad.

[fxc]

but you need to read the question. Would your client actually take your mate instead without an interview. That is never going to happen and it was always disingenuous to say it would. Even a big firm will have to ask to move their minions out...

I understand what you are saying, but suppose it never ends up being required during the contract, how would anyone go about proving the negative?

[psychocandy]

Must admit - I've tried a few different answers and I cant seem to get an INSIDE result!

[FrontEnder]

Indeterminate result - then contract review?

I've only tried it once and got an indeterminate result. I answered some questions how I think they would answer it though.

I think this result could potentially play into our hands here. Tell the client that if the tool cannot determine the result, the only option is a contract review by an expert, which you're happy to pay for.

Then send the contract to QDOS, get an outside answer and give their report to the client. It would be hard for a hiring manager to argue, surely?

[jamesbrown]

Would be interested in the definition of "connected"

Sorry, I went back and my recollection was only partially correct. Essentially, it cannot be someone that works (or has worked) regularly for the client, independently of the substitution. It's basically there to avoid some wholly fabricated circle-jerk of mates, who all work for the same client, subbing for each other.

[Guesstimator]

I understand what you are saying, but suppose it never ends up being required during the contract, how would anyone go about proving the negative?

I guess it hinges on the following though:

Will the determining party use this tool? (nothing obliges them to)

and

What would their answer be to that question?

If you have influence over those things then that's cool.

[jamesbrown]

You need to be able to send someone in without your end client insisting on interviewing them - the devil is in the explanatory detail for that question...

Agreed, it isn't really the case-law RoS as I recognise it. It's a completely unfettered RoS.

Having played around with the tool a little more, my impression, relative to the beta, is that it's still difficult to get an inside determination, but it's now relatively easy to get no determination. In particular, they're weighting control as a neutral factor when the client cannot determine "how" the work is done in principle. This is a tough one, as evidenced in Marlen and Primary Path (specialist expertise), but it will often lead to an indeterminate outcome on D&C from the tool and hence the need for a completely unfettered RoS to get an outside determination. My guess is that there will now be many undetermined results.

[MrMarkyMark]

Sorry, I went back and my recollection was only partially correct. Essentially, it cannot be someone that works (or has worked) regularly for the client, independently of the substitution. It's basically there to avoid some wholly fabricated circle-jerk of mates, who all work for the same client, subbing for each other.

Interesting one still.
Has worked in the past regularly, what does it mean?

Generally clients are useless at dealing with keeping in contact with good, past, contractors.
I have bought some back for my current client a number of times.
It suited me as I knew they would get the particular project done and we would have a bit of a crack doing it.

Furthermore we could be possibly be described as a circle-jerk of mates

[BoredBloke]

Interesting one still.
Has worked in the past regularly, what does it mean?

Generally clients are useless at dealing with keeping in contact with good, past, contractors.
I have bought some back for my current client a number of times.
It suited me as I knew they would get the particular project done and we would have a bit of a crack doing it.

Furthermore we could be possibly be described as a circle-jerk of mates

I suspect that in the eyes of hmrc a true business would shun repeat business!