Supply of services with no named workers always outside IR35?

[NFH]

Then following the law which says ignore what the paperwork says and look at a hypothetical contract rather than the paper versions, the end client is getting the named contractors they wanted and the contracts are the sham everyone knows they are.

If Section 49(1)(a) is not satisfied, then the rest of Chapter 8 (or "the law" as you put it) falls away and becomes irrelevant. I prefer to look at wording of the specific legislation and case law than to refer generally to "the law".

[eek]

If Section 49(1)(a) is not satisfied, then the rest of Chapter 8 (or "the law" as you put it) falls away and becomes irrelevant. I prefer to look at wording of the specific legislation and case law than to refer generally to "the law".

Who is sat at the end client doing the work - is it David Jones the person the client interviewed or is it Fred Smith the person your company asked to attend last week.

Once you talk about named consultants agreed by the end client Section 49(1)a is ignored and the rest of Chapter 8 still exists.

To be honest the issue is with the end client - unless you can get them to charge their minds no amount of arguing here is going to solve things. and if you think they will gamble their reputation (remember HMRC are going around saying they will investigate - do you wish to be the test case) on your interpretation of the law I wish you luck.

[LondonManc]

I did choose the name NotAllThere quite deliberately, being fully aware of my limitations.

FTFY

[jamesbrown]

If Section 49(1)(a) is not satisfied, then the rest of Chapter 8 (or "the law" as you put it) falls away and becomes irrelevant. I prefer to look at wording of the specific legislation and case law than to refer generally to "the law".

You may be looking, but you're not comprehending. It kinda needs both.

Services are delivered by people. Section 49(1)(a) is not distinguishing between people and automatons. It is identifying a situation where a worker performs work or is obliged to perform work. What the worker's written contract says and how many intermediaries are interposed between the worker and the end client and who they are is nothing more than window dressing. The legislation is invariant to written contractual terms. The contract could mention you-person or it could not mention you-person, ever. That is totally irrelevant w/r to Section 49(1)(a). If YourCo-person actually does work or is obliged to do work, rather than YourCo automaton, then YourCo-person satisfies Section 49(1)(a). The YourCo contract that never mentions a person but involves work that is delivered by people satisfies Section 49(1)(a) for each person.

A big-three consultant working on a client site is a worker doing work. Likewise, a PSC director performing work remotely for a client is a worker doing work. Likewise a YourCo employee working for a client is a worker doing work. IR35 is not limited to things like "directors of PSCs". It isn't even limited to companies.

The nature of that work comes second. You are leaping ahead to the second thing before you've even understood the first thing. The first thing is concerned with workers doing work.

The second thing is the nature of how that work is delivered. What does the hypothetical contract look like? The hypothetical contract is Section 49(1)(c). Does it look like a contract of service or a contract for services? If it's a contract for services, then there is no personal service, but the service is still delivered by a person.

That's the last thing I'll say. Perhaps stick to running your company rather than armchair lawyering. I mean, really, you think that legislation announced and implemented twenty years ago was written by noddy and no one has noticed that yet?