15th September 2008, 07:04 PM
This case was about some of the usual defences against IR35 by somebody who "worked" for the AA for three years, at their premises, using their equipment and so on. As with all ruling like this it is about the complexities of definition in a particular set of rules. Theses issues arise because the IR35 criteria are indicators of employment/self employment and each one on its own cannot be taken as definative. In this case the actual person was employed by a company of which he was a share holder in (and thus paid tax) who contracted to a agency who provided work to a third party.
My understanding is that in such cases all parties have to pay the tax that they should have paid.
Peter
My understanding is that in such cases all parties have to pay the tax that they should have paid.
Peter