IR35 Status Determination Statement

[eek]

Also

They are not restricted in the number of day’s holiday they may take or required to give notice or obtain permission for holiday time beyond notifying the client that they will not be available as a matter of professional courtesy.

Can be made simpler.

They do not need to ask or obtain permission to take holiday nor are the number of day's taken restricted

[DaveB]

Couple of thoughts. First, “discreet” typo.

On SDC, this isn’t really the test that I’m aware of w/r to IR35 case law, rather “control” and, in particular, the “how” element of control. I think the what/when/where/how distinction is more useful than the SDC distinction in terms of a typology of control and I think the how matters more than others, unless it’s a specialist role and the client has no permie specialists that can dictate the how.

On substitution, the test is that the right must not be unreasonably fettered. This can be confusing. Perhaps you can add some examples about fettering and what is reasonable/unreasonable. You do this to some degree, but examples might help.

On MoO, it may be worth distinguishing between MoO during a contract and what happens when it ends.

Will correct the typo

Not sure I follow what you are saying on the SDC part. Can you clarify / elaborate?

For subsitution, I explained this to the client in the previous doc. this isn't intended to explain IR35 in detail, but to set out the justification for an outside status. It already has a lot more exposition in in that some of the templates out there such as the QDOS version.
https://www.qdoscontractor.com/docs/...e.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Not sure it needs that level of detail re. MoO. If a contract ends, whether it is one of employment or not then any mutual obligation ends as well.

[eek]

Think \I have that covered in the last section on Client Integration :

I've done required course that are not regulatory just required (whistleblowing, corporate security, timesheet entry)... Heck health and safety usually goes well beyond what's legally required.

There is likely to be other training required which is project based - I've been subjected to 2 days of internal enterprise architecture in the past as it the course was on and it was easier for me to sit there than find everyone and ask the questions.

[jamesbrown]

Couple of thoughts. First, “discreet” typo.

On SDC, this isn’t really the test that I’m aware of w/r to IR35 case law, rather “control” and, in particular, the “how” element of control. I think the what/when/where/how distinction is more useful than the SDC distinction in terms of a typology of control and I think the how matters more than others, unless it’s a specialist role and the client has no permie specialists that can dictate the how.

On substitution, the test is that the right must not be unreasonably fettered. This can be confusing. Perhaps you can add some examples about fettering and what is reasonable/unreasonable. You do this to some degree, but examples might help.

On MoO, it may be worth distinguishing between MoO during a contract and what happens when it ends.

[eek]

Ignore last point as there is also this bit:

• Business travel is carried out at the consultants own expense.

Sorry but if a business expects me to travel on behalf of their business I would be expecting them to pay for my travel costs (and not arguing over them).

Again I can see where you are coming from but that's something I don't want to give them.

[DaveB]

However, the client may have to provide company specific training which falls into the consultant's skill / knowledge set (health and safety for instance)

I think it needs to be something like



is a better bet.

Think \I have that covered in the last section on Client Integration :

They are not expected to complete mandatory training and awareness courses outside those required for regulatory compliance.

[eek]

<CLIENT> does not provide training or support to develop the consultant’s skills or knowledge.

However, the client may have to provide company specific training which falls into the consultant's skill / knowledge set (health and safety for instance)

I think it needs to be something like

While <CLIENT> can provide training and support for project and client specific reasons but does not provide training or support to develop the consultant’s skills or knowledge..

is a better bet.


There are other bits there I would seriously argue over but given what you are trying to do it's not worth it (for instance, if working directly there is no need to use a limited company, lots of designers and marketing experts don't).

[DaveB]

Could this.....

<CLIENT> do not have permanent staff capable of carrying out this work and have engaged the consultants Ltd. Companies for the specialist services they can provide.

be changed to

<CLIENT> do not have available permanent staff capable of carrying out this work and have engaged the consultants Ltd. Companies for the specialist services they can provide.

So a contract programmer....the client might need extra programmers. They already have some but they are fully utilised and need extra resources to deliver a project

I'm taking the view that capability includes availability. They wont be capable of taking on work if they are already committed elsewhere.

[BoredBloke]

Could this.....

<CLIENT> do not have permanent staff capable of carrying out this work and have engaged the consultants Ltd. Companies for the specialist services they can provide.

be changed to

<CLIENT> do not have available permanent staff capable of carrying out this work and have engaged the consultants Ltd. Companies for the specialist services they can provide.

So a contract programmer....the client might need extra programmers. They already have some but they are fully utilised and need extra resources to deliver a project

[cojak]

Thanks DaveB, let’s make this a sticky.