Reply to: IR35 Drivel

[suityou01]

Bianchi man?

My accountant actually

[mudskipper]

Fair one. I do have a friend.

Bianchi man?

[suityou01]

Well you do have a history of talking about your "friends" latest disaster only to reveal in your 3rd post that it's actually about you. Most people here now just assume you don't have any friends and you are talking about yourself....

Fair one. I do have a friend.

[eek]

You are too thick to read a thread properly to realise it was not my drive, but my friend's drive.

Why should I listen seriously to someone who can barely read?

Well you do have a history of talking about your "friends" latest disaster only to reveal in your 3rd post that it's actually about you. Most people here now just assume you don't have any friends and you are talking about yourself....

[suityou01]

Eek is not trolling. You are too thick to understand the difference between a relationship and a working practice(s).

No wonder you cannot get a white van man out of your drive.

You are too thick to read a thread properly to realise it was not my drive, but my friend's drive.

Why should I listen seriously to someone who can barely read?

[NotAllThere]

Of course it's drivel. It's in General. Now hush your whining. Anyway, Cojak was here first.

The problems lie with contractors who aren't even bums on seats. Just bums.

[tractor]

...

Petulance is never an answer dear.

Also it's technically not drivel when suitably backed up with relevant case law. Then it just becomes a point well made. The reason it is dragging on is that eek is trolling. But then again you know this.

HTH

Eek is not trolling. You are too thick to understand the difference between a relationship and a working practice(s).

No wonder you cannot get a white van man out of your drive.

[suityou01]

So sue me.

This drivel swamped an otherwise reasonable thread.

Petulance is never an answer dear.

Also it's technically not drivel when suitably backed up with relevant case law. Then it just becomes a point well made. The reason it is dragging on is that eek is trolling. But then again you know this.

HTH

[cojak]

So sue me.

This drivel swamped an otherwise reasonable thread.

[suityou01]

The case law here is very simple:-

Show / provide documentation to prove you are working on project (by project) based work otherwise you may look like an employee....

So you missed out some stuff. As a homework exercise, try and list out the salient points from the case law that underpinned my argument perfectly that you have deliberately omitted to try and bolster your already flaky flawed stance.

Due in 9am tomorrow.

Best of luck. This will count towards your final marks and ultimately your "No longer a cretin" badge, so do try.

HTH

[eek]

If case law and basic arguments are too much for you then I don't think I am going to succeed in explaining this to you.

Also, a note to the mods, I did not start this thread and find your tactics underhand. An abuse of power!

The case law here is very simple:-

Show / provide documentation to prove you are working on project (by project) based work otherwise you may look like an employee....

[suityou01]

Yep.. Only the last 4 years were under IR35. The first three years where explicit project based work could be demonstrated with little management control were not subject to IR35...

from Contractor avoids £141,000 tax bill with partial victory in IR35 tribunal ruling

you really should read Key facts overlooked in JLJ Services IR35 ruling: contractor especially the end bit which says as it was that bit he wasn't subjected to IR35....

As many on us for continually said your understanding of IR35 is utterly flawed....

If case law and basic arguments are too much for you then I don't think I am going to succeed in explaining this to you.

Also, a note to the mods, I did not start this thread and find your tactics underhand. An abuse of power!

[eek]

Er. No. Ted. There was a lot more in there. Can I suggest printing the article out in big font, and reading using a ruler under the line you are currently reading. Try not to move your lips though.

Yep.. Only the last 4 years were under IR35. The first three years where explicit project based work could be demonstrated with little management control were not subject to IR35...

that only the last four of the seven-year contract with client Allianz were inside IR35.

from Contractor avoids £141,000 tax bill with partial victory in IR35 tribunal ruling

you really should read Key facts overlooked in JLJ Services IR35 ruling: contractor especially the end bit which says

“Had we understood the significance of the detailed project descriptions and the importance of challenging the client’s evidence so that their opinions were not simply accepted as facts, these strategies would have featured more strongly in the case for my defence.”

as it was that bit he wasn't subjected to IR35....

As many on us have continually said your understanding of IR35 is utterly flawed.... I'm very careful in making sure my contracts tally with explicit projects or change notes....

[CourtesyFlush]

Hate to say but he is right. And the case law only applies to the contract part of the engagement, as does IR35.

And SueEllen also seems to agree. I would say it might be time to bang another drum there eek.

HTH

[suityou01]

But based on that case law only if you cannot show identified projects based work.

Er. No. Ted. There was a lot more in there. Can I suggest printing the article out in big font, and reading using a ruler under the line you are currently reading. Try not to move your lips though.