Csn't be arsed to wade through those cases and point out the counterarguments, except to note they are all several years old.
1400+ cases have been taken to the commissioners, 3 were lost, none less than five years ago. Two of those were certainly winnable had they been run today.
IR35 is dead, there is no point trying to argue otherwise. HMRC are trying another line.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "IR 35 Friendly contracts – “Project Based” of utter importance."
Collapse
-
"As I keep saying - and one day people will listen - only the lazy or terminally dense contractor needs to be inside IR35."
Malvolio
Having read some cases lately regarding people who have lost appeals against the IR when their contract appears to be water-tight outside IR35 (and working practices for that matter), how can you say something like this? It would appear that the IR are being a lot more picky about what they concede as being outside IR35 and are twisting things around in order to get their way.
One such case (already mentioned in another thread - sorry for the dodgy formatting):
IR35 Synaptek Ltd v Young STC543 - Personal service companies (operating Salary & Dividend) and agencies
Even with concurrent clients, working your own hours, using your equipment and professional indemnity insurance, you can still fall under IR35 provisions
Key lessons from this case
There is no single test that discriminates between contracts of service (employment) and contracts for services
If there is a master-servant relationship and a specified individual commits to completing work it is likely to be a contract of service
Different weights can be applied to different provisions of contracts; being "in business on his account" could be outweighed by, for example, an obvious "master-servant" relationship
Contracts that specify exact hours and for a fixed period are more likely to be considered contracts of service than those focusing on specific project deliverables.
Summary of the case
Background
Gordon Stutchbury provided software engineering services to clients through his own company Synaptek Ltd and via a contract with agency NES. Synaptek did not contract directly with EDS, the client.
Why did the Inland Revenue act?
The IR considered that had there been a direct relationship between Mr Stutchbury and EDS, it would have been a contract of service, not a contract for services, and despite there being other concurrent clients during the period, concluded payments were Mr Stutchbury's personal income.
Why did the contractors appeal?
Synaptek's appeal was based on:
There being little reasoning in the IR's case, apart from cited cases
The IR incorrectly used some cases to illustrate their arguments; they "misdirected themselves in law"
There were points of law relating to the IR creating a hypothetical contract, contracts normally being concerned with points of law and the IR's investigations dealing with fact
Mr Stutchbury's right of substitution and the want of mutuality of the relationship with EDS
Concurrent clients during the work for EDS, including other clients on the same site as EDS
Mr Stutchbury worked no specific hours (eg nine to five), came and went to suit his own schedule and assisted other companies on site during the working day
The contract with NES, saying Synaptek was responsible for its own training, provisions of equipment, insurance and indemnifying NES
Mr Stutchbury using his own reference books as tools of trade on site with EDS.
Who won and why?
The contractor's grounds for appeal appeared strong and many were classic IR35 defence strategies. However, the IR won because the judge considered:
Time was the issue in the contract, a standard 37.5 hour "working week", not specific project deliverables
Although there was the right of substitution, the right was never sought and also required permission from the client
When the IR created a hypothetical contract between EDS and Mr Stutchbury, this mixed fact and law and the High Court considers only points of law
Concurrent clients were mostly evenings and weekends; Mr Stutchbury was mostly on site at EDS during the week
That Mr Stutchbury was in business for himself was outweighed by other factors of the case
There is now significant case law challenging whether the employer's obligation to provide work (want of mutuality) is in all cases an essential element of a contract of service
Mr Stutchbury was integrated with EDS employees and was sufficiently integrated to require a line manager
Being exposed to financial risk was limited to the insolvency of NES.
Although seemingly quite comprehensive, the terms of the agreement between NES and Synaptek did allow the IR to challenge Mr Stutchbury's status as a contractor being in business for himself, and the Judge agreed with their conclusion
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Moscow MuleI'm interested in how folks who do support roles manage to get themselves outside of IR35? I always thought it would be impossible, but clearly some are acheiving it?
As I keep saying - and one day people will listen - only the lazy or terminally dense contractor needs to be inside IR35. Incidentally, QDOS's relaxation of the rules under which they offer TLC35 seems to indicate they agree with me.
Leave a comment:
-
And how is this not completely incompatible with having a contract term (which is how most of us work)? And for that matter, it doesn't seem to fit very well with being paid per hour/day either.
Leave a comment:
-
I'm interested in how folks who do support roles manage to get themselves outside of IR35? I always thought it would be impossible, but clearly some are acheiving it?
Leave a comment:
-
IR 35 Friendly contracts – “Project Based” of utter importance.
How is your contract schedule worded ? Do you have clearly defined deliverables part of a specified project ? According to Lawspeed this is the single most important point in an IR35 friendly contract along , of course, with corresponding actual working practices.
http://www.lawspeed.com/providers/ir...schedules.aspxTags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: