15th September 2008, 04:22 PM
I suspect that the employee is only mentioned because they were the plaintiff in this case. I'm sure HMRC are now doing a full audit of the AA, finding all the 'self-employed contractors' and will act accordingly. It really isn't in their interest to ignore such a huge source of revenue.
However, this would not seem to be directly comparable to the archaeology situation in question, as this IT guy has his own consultancy which was contracted to work for the AA by an intermediary organisation. It doesn't really make the answer any clearer. If I were him, I would be suing everyone for providing poor advice/stitching me up like a kipper.
I see that the IFA has a lawyer of over 20 years experience on their books, Tim Howard. http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...hp?page=39
It would be great to hear from him what exactly this judgement means, and what significance this has to the archaeological community.
I see
However, this would not seem to be directly comparable to the archaeology situation in question, as this IT guy has his own consultancy which was contracted to work for the AA by an intermediary organisation. It doesn't really make the answer any clearer. If I were him, I would be suing everyone for providing poor advice/stitching me up like a kipper.
I see that the IFA has a lawyer of over 20 years experience on their books, Tim Howard. http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...hp?page=39
It would be great to hear from him what exactly this judgement means, and what significance this has to the archaeological community.
I see