Outside IR35 contracts

[northernladuk]

I see that NorthernladUK is still banging on about length of contracts when legally little if any weight is given to this situation. Furthermore, neither Markel Tax nor Qdos ask such a question in their extensive questionnaire when deciding if contracts are subject to IR35

Sadly it appears you've learnt nothing while you've been away. I'm sure in a number of my posts when I bang on about length of contract I quoted from judgements where length was a factor in the case. If you care to cast your mind back I will have also mentioned that the length of the contract on paper isn't exactly the problem, becoming part and parcel and forgetting to be outside is the factor linked to length that kills most contractors.

But stick around, you'll see me mention it more. Better still don't. It was nice when you weren't around.

[JohntheBike]

Sadly it appears you've learnt nothing while you've been away. I'm sure in a number of my posts when I bang on about length of contract I quoted from judgements where length was a factor in the case. If you care to cast your mind back I will have also mentioned that the length of the contract on paper isn't exactly the problem, becoming part and parcel and forgetting to be outside is the factor linked to length that kills most contractors.

But stick around, you'll see me mention it more. Better still don't. It was nice when you weren't around.

"Sadly it appears you've learnt nothing while you've been away."

actually I've learnt how to make a lot of money!

Anyway, what I've said about Markel Tax and Qdos is still valid.

[BR14]

"Sadly it appears you've learnt nothing while you've been away."

actually I've learnt how to make a lot of money!

Anyway, what I've said about Markel Tax and Qdos is still valid.

FOG

[northernladuk]

Anyway, what I've said about Markel Tax and Qdos is still valid.

It might be but must be taken with caution. It doesn't have anything to do with the status at time of engagement. If you told them you will be in this role for 8 years I'm sure they'll start sucking air through their teeth. Just because it's not asked doesn't mean it's not an issue. The judge in the JLJ case stated the following..

Mr. Spencer continued to work for Allianz, and accepted yearly contract extensions, it seems realistic to say that his status must have changed. He would by then plainly not satisfy many of the tests included in the bullet points in paragraph 55 above. He was engaged on an entirely personal basis. The substitution argument was basically irrelevant “window-dressing”. If he was to be engaged indefinitely on a non-project basis, it seems likely that he was proving useful in numerous respects in relation to computers and IT, and no longer just undertaking his defined projects. So the “control” argument becomes stronger. And fundamentally Allianz wants to engage him as a permanent member of the team.

That bold bit and that whole paragraph strongly indicated the 7 years he was there was part of the issue. So, as I said, length of time as a single point might not be an issue but it brings with it a whole host of issue that courts will, and have, taken in to account. So was the length of time he was engaged for partly responsible for him losing part of the case, the answer is absolutely yes.