Originally posted by kingcook
View Post
![Smile](https://forums.contractoruk.com/core/images/smilies/smile.png)
Thanks to the OP for clarifying it.
I believe it is as much the responsibility of the revenue to prove direction and control or due diligence as it is for the contractor otherwise IR35 cases would never end up at the tribunal/courts.
The OP is clear in that he is not being directed to do this. Indeed the fact that the Client has offered this as a option which the OP is FREE to walk away from if he so chooses clearly demonstrates the opposite of D & C.
Furthermore the only reference to D & C that I can find on the HMRC guidance is that d & C is assumed where the client can move you where they wish to cater for changing priorities. The lack of any clarification or examples in the new IR35 test scenarios shows I think that they know how difficult it is to prove D & C (or they are being deliberately obtuse so as not to advertise how to circumvent that part of the legislation).
I have spent some time searching and can find no evidence of D & C being instrumental in a case loss except for the part & parcel aspect which is another whole can of worms but very much less ambiguous i.e in some circumstances it is quite easy to determine status from the part and parcel test.
Next steps for the OP? I would ask for a contract change to cover this aspect of delivery without including the training aspect, have the draft contract reviewed (there is the due diligence I was alluding to
![Smile](https://forums.contractoruk.com/core/images/smilies/smile.png)
If the review comes back positive then go for it. the other points about revenue and profit that the OP makes are equally valid and form part of any potential defence.
Leave a comment: