Worrying IR35 defeat

[JonRB]

Very concerned about this defeat, as the situation is almost identical to many of my contracts.

http://www.shout99.com/contractors/showarticle.pl?...

[JonRB]

That would only be a course of action if you didn't want a) the current contract to continue, b) an extension, c) any repeat work from the client or d) any work from anyone your client talks to.

Besides, the Revenue would say that you are only an employee for tax purposes and not benefit purposes.

[JonRB]

Noger said:

They would say that and have done so ! Can't remember the case, but someone did exactly that. He was an employee for tax purposes but not for benefits.

Indeed. I also recall there being at least one case, but like you can't remember the specific details.

Noger said:

Considering this is the first case Accountax has lost, I am still pretty comfortable with IR35.

Hopefully they'll appeal it and take it all the way, because it is working situation that a lot of contractors find themselves in.

Edited by JonRB on Friday 27th July 16:16

[JonRB]

Noger said:

Yes, would be useful to see an appeal. It is a worry as you say, but not one that people in that situation could not potentially do something about if they push hard for a contract change at renewal ? Easier said than done with many clients/agents though.

My reading of the report on Shout99 was that his Supplier-Agency contract was pretty good but the agency and client stuffed him by the former not having symmetry with the Agency-Client and the latter by telling the hearing that they would "merely consider" a substitute which the Special Commisioners took as evidence that there wasn't a true Right of Substitution (I'd contest that) and that, whilst there wasn't MoO with with regards to extensions there was within the contract ie. the client wouldn't send him home mid-week if they'd run out of work for him - and let's face it, most of us are in that situation.

With regards to symmetry I always negotiate a clause in the Supplier-Agency contract that warrants symmetry. I've only ever had one agency refuse to comply with that request, and it turns out that they were misrepresenting, just like in this case (different agency, BTW).

But anyway, apart from the lack of a symmetry clause I can't see how this chap's situation is that much different to some of the ones I supply service over.

Edited by JonRB on Saturday 28th July 18:17