This could mess things up a bit.
Discussion
There is nothing particularly new here.
Employment legislation and tax legislation do not always sing off the same hymn sheet.
There have been Employer Liability cases where employers have been found to have the same duty of care to sole-traders using their premises as they do to their employees.
There have been unfair dismisal cases where agency staff have been found to have the same redundancy rights as permnanent staff.
The Revenue will sometimes argue that because an individual is covered by such "guarantees" that he/she therefore must be an employee for tax or NI purposes - but that isn't always the case.
This new legislation is framed around the term "worker" rather than "employee" - deliberately.
Employment legislation and tax legislation do not always sing off the same hymn sheet.
There have been Employer Liability cases where employers have been found to have the same duty of care to sole-traders using their premises as they do to their employees.
There have been unfair dismisal cases where agency staff have been found to have the same redundancy rights as permnanent staff.
The Revenue will sometimes argue that because an individual is covered by such "guarantees" that he/she therefore must be an employee for tax or NI purposes - but that isn't always the case.
This new legislation is framed around the term "worker" rather than "employee" - deliberately.
t bit of legislation that's going to be. 
It is aimed at those who tend to be UNDERPAID as agency workers - cleaners, security staff etc - not IT or engineering bods.
I don't see businesses cutting people's pay because "the law says so".
Market forces will still dictate what qualified professional and technical staff and contract workers are paid, not government legislation.
I actually think it will have no IR35 impact at all. Where before the "employer" might have been able to argue that pay and conditions were obviously different between staff and "non-staff" workers, now that differentiation may not be so clear cut and the Revenue might find it difficult to argue their case as to what the individual's status actually is as both categories have similar rights.
As I said earlier, "non-employees" have, on a number of cases, have been able to argue that they were entitled to some, if not all, of the rights associated with "normal" employees.
This is, at heart, a piece of human rights legislation, not tax legislation.
I don't see businesses cutting people's pay because "the law says so".
Market forces will still dictate what qualified professional and technical staff and contract workers are paid, not government legislation.
I actually think it will have no IR35 impact at all. Where before the "employer" might have been able to argue that pay and conditions were obviously different between staff and "non-staff" workers, now that differentiation may not be so clear cut and the Revenue might find it difficult to argue their case as to what the individual's status actually is as both categories have similar rights.
As I said earlier, "non-employees" have, on a number of cases, have been able to argue that they were entitled to some, if not all, of the rights associated with "normal" employees.
This is, at heart, a piece of human rights legislation, not tax legislation.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff