THis is about the principals of self employment...
About what can and cannot be classed as self employment and whether a company can decide everything for you, without these principals being adhered to.
Geli is not being mis-sold self employment, he and others are being placed in a position where they must accept a position where they are being employed in all but name... ie sham self employment.
http://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/ir35_su...ation.html
THis is where, as in all these cases, legal advice is required... rather than 'just' our forum legalese
The inland revenue test..
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/calcs/esi.htm
is potentially flawed. and the way round employing people as self employed is found.
ps Geli...
it would be potential useful however if you were to take the test and copy paste your answers into an email for me
About what can and cannot be classed as self employment and whether a company can decide everything for you, without these principals being adhered to.
Geli is not being mis-sold self employment, he and others are being placed in a position where they must accept a position where they are being employed in all but name... ie sham self employment.
http://www.contractoruk.com/ir35/ir35_su...ation.html
THis is where, as in all these cases, legal advice is required... rather than 'just' our forum legalese
Quote:When deciding whether a contract amounts to employment (a contract of service) or self-employment (a contract for services) there are three essential questions to consider:however...Why are these three areas so important? Because if the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, the contract cannot be an employment, whatever other terms it may contain.
- Is there a requirement for the worker’s personal service?
- Is there a sufficient degree of control over the worker?
- Are the mutual obligations of the contract consistent with employment?
Quote:A lot has been written on the subject of mutuality of obligations in the context of employment but instead of getting tied up in phrases like ‘care and continuity’ and ‘trust and confidence’ it is probably safer simply to look at the definition that has come out of the major case law decisions.which could of course be the loophole used.... no obligation... no employment. See hopw complicated it is.
In cases such as O’Kelly v Trustehouse Forte (1983) and Carmichael v National Power (1999) the question asked was: is there an obligation to offer and an obligation to accept future work. In both cases the answer was no and therefore the courts found that there was not sufficient mutuality of obligation to form a contract of service.
The inland revenue test..
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/calcs/esi.htm
is potentially flawed. and the way round employing people as self employed is found.
ps Geli...
it would be potential useful however if you were to take the test and copy paste your answers into an email for me