Is an Employment Tribunal binding over HMRC?

[JohntheBike]

And the original question was whether ET is binding over HMRC. I still think not. The contractor won back the tax deducted from the client/agency. HMRC were not involved.

I still think not

HMRC is clearly. They can't go against any legal judgement. They could try taking the case to the FTT after the ET, but are unlikely to do so, as I've said previously.

[JohntheBike]

Following the ruling in Elbourn v The Met Office, and analysis from CUK and elsewhere, I want to explore the options open to us and how this impacts the ClientCo SDS, especially when there's clearly been no effort to determine the correct status for individual contractors.

Of course there are many variables and differences between all of our situations, but using any example where the MyCo vs Pimp contract has good SDC and MOO, and this can be used at the ET/EAT to confirm non-employment, is this binding over HMRC?

You work for your ClientCo for x number of years, then get forced inside after April 5th. You continue working and then lodge a case claiming employment rights. ClientCo and Pimp get the case dismissed on the basis you are not an employee of either. ET rules that because of SDC and/or MOO that you are self employed.

HMRC comes in and says you were inside all along, so pay up, but ET says you weren't.

Would the ET findings be valid for all the previous years? (I am working on the basis that the length of time is not an indicator to IR35, given that SDC and/or MOO are in play) Would the ET findings relating to s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 be an overriding factor to IR35?

Elbourn v The Met Office

link?

[eek]

link?

Less than 2 seconds on google gives me Mr A Elbourn v The Met Office and Qualserve Consulting Ltd: 1400977/2018 - GOV.UK as the first link.

[northernladuk]

link?

Google not working for you?

[JohntheBike]

Less than 2 seconds on google gives me Mr A Elbourn v The Met Office and Qualserve Consulting Ltd: 1400977/2018 - GOV.UK as the first link.

Was it dissected here on CUK?

[JohntheBike]

Google not working for you?

I was looking for the CUK debate, which I seemed to have missed, or forgotten.

[SimonMac]

link?

Google?

Mr A Elbourn v The Met Office and Qualserve Consulting Ltd: 1400977/2018 - GOV.UK

[Jolie]

Was it dissected here on CUK?

I couldn't find anything, which is why I started this thread.

[SimonMac]

Was it dissected here on CUK?

Given you mentioned the case here

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2655651

Not sure feigning ignorance is working in your favour

[SimonMac]

Given you mentioned the case here

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2655651

Not sure feigning ignorance is working in your favour

And here

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2655603