Probject canned and MOO?

[northernladyuk]

Interesting thread. There are going to be some pretty pissed off people in the public sector later in the year, when they have been declared insider IR35 and are then canned due to lack of MOO.

[BlasterBates]

Surely your agency has given you written confirmation cancelling the contract. If not just request it.

[WordIsBond]

It might show lack of MOO but remember it only applies to this contract - not you as a person or your company, as far as any other contracts are concerned

Mostly true, but not entirely. It's what HMRC want us to believe, anyway.

Case law might say differently. In several cases, how someone runs their business, outside of the contract in question, has had an impact on the ruling that they really are in business for themselves rather than a disguised employee.

It's a silver bullet for this contract -- it's obviously outside. But it could be helpful for other contracts, too, if they are borderline. It helps you say, "Shove off, mate, I'm running a business. Look what has happened to me and what I've done in the last five years."

I'd keep it in my IR35 dossier for a long time, and not just for this contract.

[LondonManc]

I don't think so. Financial risk directly relates to losing money you are owed or paying for stuff that brings in money later etc. What is happening to the OP is documented and agreed in the contract is not a risk. It's a possible scenario that can arise so not a risk. It could be a business risk because he's losing business but it's not financial risk.

It's like when people try claim a loss from the agency when they don't get paid notice period. Nothing was earned so there is no loss.

Repairing stuff at your own cost is financial risk.

Zero employment rights, no actual notice would probably be good shouts then.

[Cirrus]

It might show lack of MOO but remember it only applies to this contract - not you as a person or your company, as far as any other contracts are concerned

[northernladuk]

It's also good evidence of financial risk - unlike a permie, you're getting no recompense for this despite believing that you'd be able to invoice an extra x thousand pounds between now and June.

I don't think so. Financial risk directly relates to losing money you are owed or paying for stuff that brings in money later etc. What is happening to the OP is documented and agreed in the contract is not a risk. It's a possible scenario that can arise so not a risk. It could be a business risk because he's losing business but it's not financial risk.

It's like when people try claim a loss from the agency when they don't get paid notice period. Nothing was earned so there is no loss.

Repairing stuff at your own cost is financial risk.

[LondonManc]

It's also good evidence of financial risk - unlike a permie, you're getting no recompense for this despite believing that you'd be able to invoice an extra x thousand pounds between now and June.

[northernladuk]

The fact you've gone is all the MoO you need. It's about offering you work outside of the current schedule of work. If it's dried up and your gone early that's all the evidence you need.
They will need to formally inform you you are leaving and for what reason anyway so just save that.

You don't really need 'extra' evidence when being canned like this. It's a massive positive flag for status without having to get anything else really.

EDIT : Just to be pedantic you aren't looking for evidence of MoO. That's very bad. You are looking for evidence to prove the absence of MoO. Actually I'm not being pedantic. It's pretty bloody key. The fact you are being binned is evidence of that in itself. There are some good articles on MoO if you google them which would be worth a look.

EDIT 2 : Are you with an agency? If so it's really the mail from the agency you need. You have no contractual obligation from the client.

EDIT 3 : If you really want good evidence and everyone is being very understanding if you get an email stating immediate termination or a termination period less than notice period will look very good from an IR35 perspective. As I said before though. Being canned alone is more than enough for you to be safe from an IR35 perspective IMO

[eek]

Good point! Now I'm left wondering if the contact end date you mentioned was a lucky guess, you looked at my posting history or if I have been rumbled in real life!

It was just a guess but a canned project normally means 3+ months to run. Otherwise companies usually keep people to the end just to save face all round...

[BlueSharp]

Can't do any harm. The fact you have a contract with an end date in June say with no invoices past March 17th is also probably enough evidence.

Good point! Now I'm left wondering if the contact end date you mentioned was a lucky guess, you looked at my posting history or if I have been rumbled in real life!

[eek]

Project had been canned at client co due to cut backs. Looks like all I'm heading for the door. Any advise on collecting evidence to prove MOO for IR35?

Would a simple email from client co be enough that the project has been stopped and services not required?

Can't do any harm. The fact you have a contract with an end date in June say with no invoices past March 17th is also probably enough evidence.

[BlueSharp]

Project had been canned at client co due to cut backs. Looks like all I'm heading for the door. Any advise on collecting evidence to prove MOO for IR35?

Would a simple email from client co be enough that the project has been stopped and services not required?