Client decides role is inside IR35 but then fails to deduct any taxes

[northernladuk]

I'm not sure i'd necessarily agree that the money isn't rightfully mine

That's what everyone that receives money that isn't theirs and wants to keep it says.

[Paralytic]

Particularly given the email I've also just received asking if I can send my substitute again when i'm away on holiday next week. You couldn't make it up!

If i were forced to go inside and then this happened, I'd be asking for a finders fee for doing so.

Have you asked them how they propose to pay the substitute?

[eek]

If i were forced to go inside and then this happened, I'd be asking for a finders fee for doing so.

Have you asked them how they propose to pay the substitute?

I would be appealing the Status Determination based on the request - as it would be very hard to continue the argument that the rule is inside given that request.

[NotAllThere]

You'd imagine they would seems you've kept money knowing full well it's not yours. Can't work out if that's theft or fraud?

If you receive money and you know it's not right, then it's theft.

[jamesbrown]

I'm not sure i'd necessarily agree that the money isn't rightfully mine given their incorrect inside rating.

Assume that is tongue in cheek, because that isn't going to work out well, otherwise. Mistakes by one or other or both parties are a routine situation in contract law and there's plenty of case law on them. Same for an employment contract, incidentally (if your employer overpays you accidently).

Anyhow I will now go explain the brave new world to their HR department again. Thanks all for your comments.

That's about all you can do. Talk to them like children and pat them on the head.

[Paralytic]

I would be appealing the Status Determination based on the request - as it would be very hard to continue the argument that the rule is inside given that request.

I'd not, unless i was ready to walk (or be walked). We all know these determinations are risk-based (ie. making someone outside is more than someone is willing to risk their job for), rather than role-assessment-based.

[eek]

I'd not, unless i was ready to walk (or be walked). We all know these determinations are risk-based (ie. making someone outside is more than someone is willing to risk their job for), rather than role-assessment-based.

But not in this case - this is a slam dunk case of abuse of process given the request that a substitute is wanted for next week - and providing a substitute is confirmation that the role is outside IR35.

[jamesbrown]

Agree, but it's hard to know what the OP can do beyond the client-led status disagreement process which, at best, might come back with something like "yeah, asking for a substitute was a mistake, we didn't mean that and want you to deliver the services personally at all times and going forwards that will happen". It's unclear what action can be taken beyond that.

[eek]

Agree, but it's hard to know what the OP can do beyond the client-led status disagreement process which, at best, might come back with something like "yeah, asking for a substitute was a mistake, we didn't mean that and want you to deliver the services personally at all times and going forwards that will happen". It's unclear what action can be taken beyond that.

At least if he appeals he can explain to those involved that they can't have their cake and eat it - they choices were do you want a company providing a service or an individual.

And if its the latter you are going to have to manage holidays and other leaves of absence without any external support.

[jamesbrown]

At least if he appeals he can explain to those involved that they can't have their cake and eat it - they choices were do you want a company providing a service or an individual.

And if its the latter you are going to have to manage holidays and other leaves of absence without any external support.

Right, true. Client does sound a bit clueless and unprepared/panicked, at least their HR (shock horror).