Reply to: BBC presenters lose IR35 appeal

[JohntheBike]

Who is "we"?

Contractors do not act as a coherent body.

Look around. No single body has enough clout to have their contracting members act as a body.

Taking on an end client (who is paying you or who has influence) own your own is a brave shout unless you are retired or no longer wish to contract.

And of course I'm an HMRC mole - speak to them every day.

Who is "we"

the Royal "we" perhaps?

unless you are retired or no longer wish to contract

I'll be in that position after April 2020, make of that what you will.

[simes]

But I honestly don't care....

Your word count would tend to suggest otherwise...

[WordIsBond]

agreed

you'd be forgiven if you thought that some of those on here support HMRC's position.

One would also be forgiven if they thought some on here are idiots.

And now I will depart this thread in the hopes I can escape before NAT or cojak hammer me.

[simes]

I do not know how many more times I can say this, I have conceded, and do continue to concede all legalese honours.

That will include phraseology. And terminology. And, quite clearly, nomology.

[WordIsBond]

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

Try not to be stupider than necessary. Let me rephrase it for you since apparently that is necessary.

'Precedent' is a term often used in a legal context that has very specific meaning. Because this case had to do with a legal challenge, if you use that word people will assume that you are using it in the legal sense and rightly note that it does not apply. Therefore, if you wish to argue this point, you would do better to use a different word, or at least qualify it, so as to avoid pointless arguments over the word.

Hopefully that is not beyond you. I was trying to help you out, not score points, because I knew what you were trying to say and why it wasn't getting through.

Carry on now however you wish, even (futilely) insisting on using the unqualified word 'precedent' if you want. If you are actually interested in advice, you could perhaps use something like 'moral precedent' which takes us out of the legal realm. But I honestly don't care....

[northernladuk]

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

It its an absolute key point. There is no useful precedent set if its settled out of court. You can make assumptions but that it very useful to anyone but the lay man chewing the fat over this. Many cases are settled before case that could actually have won. It's just too costly sometimes to go any further so they pay up. It doesn't mean they would have lost or the amount paid was anything like they would have got.

We know what you are trying to get at but the way you are phrasing it is wrong.

[webberg]

Last post here.

Some of the posters above are either ignoring the real world or making assumptions just to create a scenario that is so unreal as to defy logic.

If logical arguments are made, logic can be used to counter them.

If illogical arguments are made, no logic can counter them.

I fear we are at the latter stage and I'll not waste any more time here.

[webberg]

agreed, so we must employ any approach to counter this. However, there are many on here who frown on such action and opinion. Perhaps they are HMRC moles?

Who is "we"?

Contractors do not act as a coherent body.

Look around. No single body has enough clout to have their contracting members act as a body.

Taking on an end client (who is paying you or who has influence) own your own is a brave shout unless you are retired or no longer wish to contract.

And of course I'm an HMRC mole - speak to them every day.

[simes]

Completely.

Posturing, for the sake posturing...

[JohntheBike]

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

agreed

you'd be forgiven if you thought that some of those on here support HMRC's position.

[simes]

Precedent is a legal term with precise meaning. If you want to argue this you'd better use a different word.

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

[JohntheBike]

I'm not sure what ghosts in the machine or conspiracy theories are being suggested here, but in my experience working in and advising big corporates, they ALWAYS obey the law where the issues could be business threatening.

They will no doubt have one eye on the drift of decisions but unless there is a case with judicial weight, it will be ignored.

"Ramping up" such actions will simply identify a group of contractors who are frankly too difficult to hire.

they ALWAYS obey the law

obeying the law in these circumstances means that they ensure that due diligence is undertaken and that the contracts of individuals are assessed correctly. The evidence so far is that this is not happening. Blanket assessments are the norm.

Faced with this situation, those affected should use whatever legal means they can, to clarify their position.

[webberg]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But ramping up such actions that we are discussing, might just ensure that client do abide by the law, i.e. they make accurate and individual determinations, as is required by the legislation.

I'm not sure what ghosts in the machine or conspiracy theories are being suggested here, but in my experience working in and advising big corporates, they ALWAYS obey the law where the issues could be business threatening.

They will no doubt have one eye on the drift of decisions but unless there is a case with judicial weight, it will be ignored.

"Ramping up" such actions will simply identify a group of contractors who are frankly too difficult to hire.

[JohntheBike]

The highlighted part makes me laugh. That's just the token cover your backside part of the legislation, just like having an appeals process which I fully expect no contractor will ever win.

Sadly this is nothing to do with abiding by the law and we all know it. This is purely political and to do with maximising tax revenue for a specific group of people that successive governments have painted as a particular tax avoiding bogeyman.

agreed, so we must employ any approach to counter this. However, there are many on here who frown on such action and opinion. Perhaps they are HMRC moles?

[ShandyDrinker]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But ramping up such actions that we are discussing, might just ensure that client do abide by the law, i.e. they make accurate and individual determinations, as is required by the legislation.

The highlighted part makes me laugh. That's just the token cover your backside part of the legislation, just like having an appeals process which I fully expect no contractor will ever win.

Sadly this is nothing to do with abiding by the law and we all know it. This is purely political and to do with maximising tax revenue for a specific group of people that successive governments have painted as a particular tax avoiding bogeyman.