Originally posted by cojak
View Post
1) it's the typical kneejerk response you get when the end client has a contract that explicitly passes the responsibility back to the agency
2) they've been told that they need it to cover a particular scenario (where the behavior of the contractor makes the role inside IR35)
The fact it wouldn't stand up in court isn't something they've thought about as it's never occurred yet. See also the very different viewpoints regarding agency regulation opt outs that Andy Hallett has compared to other posters here.
Leave a comment: