Gary Linekar

[JAMIECCFC]

 

[Woody]

Lineker not employed by BBC after all

 

[kiffa]

Lineker not employed by BBC after all

Fuck me I can’t believe Pointy was wrong about this

Stunned here me

 

[JAMIECCFC]

Fuck me I can’t believe Pointy was wrong about this

Stunned here me

I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to tell everyone he never said such thing

 

[PointyHead]

I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to tell everyone he never said such thing

I'm surprised by the verdict, will wait for IR35 experts to dissect it; media blurb seems to revolve round multiple contracts with different entities, which isn't relevant.

Usually, where there's no plausible RoS and there's clear D&C, then HMRC win. The Lorraine Kelly verdict was a surprise too.

It just goes to show what a badly implemented piece of legislation IR35 was.

 

[The Colonel]

I'm surprised by the verdict, will wait for IR35 experts to dissect it; media blurb seems to revolve round multiple contracts with different entities, which isn't relevant.

Usually, where there's no plausible RoS and there's clear D&C, then HMRC win. The Lorraine Kelly verdict was a surprise too.

It just goes to show what a badly implemented piece of legislation IR35 was.

You were right all along then.

 

[PointyHead]

You were right all along then.

Yes and no. I've always had a hard time with broadcasters arguing on D&C and RoS, pillars of IR35, but there's been a lot of wierdness. Lorraine Kelly seemed to win by arguing she wasn't appearing as herself on TV but as created personality,

Still catching up on opinions, but it's pretty interesting stuff. The ruling didn't address employment status, rather focused on in an IR35 investigation was permitted, ie did the intermediaries legislation apply in this instance where contracts were direct between BBC and Lineker's entity. Jugears had a partnership rather than a limited, which may or may not complicate things further.

HMRC will appeal this no doubt, but I'm trying to get an answer from experts if this means any client - limited company direct contract thus makes IR35 irrelevant. If so, there will be a few recruitment consultants bricking it.

The sooner it gets scrapped, the better.

 

[The Colonel]

Yes and no. I've always had a hard time with broadcasters arguing on D&C and RoS, pillars of IR35, but there's been a lot of wierdness. Lorraine Kelly seemed to win by arguing she wasn't appearing as herself on TV but as created personality,

Still catching up on opinions, but it's pretty interesting stuff. The ruling didn't address employment status, rather focused on in an IR35 investigation was permitted, ie did the intermediaries legislation apply in this instance where contracts were direct between BBC and Lineker's entity. Jugears had a partnership rather than a limited, which may or may not complicate things further.

HMRC will appeal this no doubt, but I'm trying to get an answer from experts if this means any client - limited company direct contract thus makes IR35 irrelevant. If so, there will be a few recruitment consultants bricking it.

The sooner it gets scrapped, the better.

I knew you wouldn't agree.

 

[Woody]

I'm surprised by the verdict, will wait for IR35 experts to dissect it; media blurb seems to revolve round multiple contracts with different entities, which isn't relevant.

Usually, where there's no plausible RoS and there's clear D&C, then HMRC win. The Lorraine Kelly verdict was a surprise too.

It just goes to show what a badly implemented piece of legislation IR35 was.

Well, at least this puts to bed any spurious arguments that Lineker's social media conduct should be held to a different standard from that of Clarkson, Neil etc.

 

[PointyHead]

I knew you wouldn't agree.

My points on his contract are valid based upon case law. The verdict on this case was based upon if HMRC had the right to investigate, a different kettle of fish.

Less a case of me disagreeing, more a case that the points behind my view were never looked into - and the reasoning behind that could theoretically open a massive can of worms.

 

[The Colonel]

My points on his contract are valid based upon case law. The verdict on this case was based upon if HMRC had the right to investigate, a different kettle of fish.

Less a case of me disagreeing, more a case that the points behind my view were never looked into - and the reasoning behind that could theoretically open a massive can of worms.

You disagree that you were disagreeing.

 

[PointyHead]

Well, at least this puts to bed any spurious arguments that Lineker's social media conduct should be held to a different standard from that of Clarkson, Neil etc.

Well, until HMRC appeal..

Lineker is still a bellend though.

 

[PlumberAde]

Yes and no. I've always had a hard time with broadcasters arguing on D&C and RoS, pillars of IR35, but there's been a lot of wierdness. Lorraine Kelly seemed to win by arguing she wasn't appearing as herself on TV but as created personality,

Still catching up on opinions, but it's pretty interesting stuff. The ruling didn't address employment status, rather focused on in an IR35 investigation was permitted, ie did the intermediaries legislation apply in this instance where contracts were direct between BBC and Lineker's entity. Jugears had a partnership rather than a limited, which may or may not complicate things further.

HMRC will appeal this no doubt, but I'm trying to get an answer from experts if this means any client - limited company direct contract thus makes IR35 irrelevant. If so, there will be a few recruitment consultants bricking it.

The sooner it gets scrapped, the better.

Yes.


And



No.

 

[PointyHead]

You disagree that you were disagreeing.

I disagree with your position that I disagree I was disagreeing.

You might want to act all sophisticated, trying the old double negative approach but some of us are smart enough to use the triple negative tactic. Dare you have the balls to try the rarely used quadruple negative gambit, kid?

 

[PlumberAde]

I disagree with your position that I disagree I was disagreeing.

You might want to act all sophisticated, trying the old double negative approach but some of us are smart enough to use the triple negative tactic. Dare you have the balls to try the rarely used quadruple negative gambit, kid?

Or, does he have a life?

 

[Woody]

Well, until HMRC appeal..

Lineker is still a bellend though.

I rather hope HMRC have wasted enough of our money on this nonsense already.

 

[PointyHead]

Or, does he have a life?

You think anyone creating and running this place has a life?

 

[kiffa]

Well, at least this puts to bed any spurious arguments that Lineker's social media conduct should be held to a different standard from that of Clarkson, Neil etc.

Well fuck me I can’t believe Pointy missed this

This has truly ghasted my flabber

I am core shook

 

[PointyHead]

I rather hope HMRC have wasted enough of our money on this nonsense already.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, you misunderstand HMRC's approach.

Changes to IR35/private sector have yielded more money. Not all people / companies challenge that. Lose a bit of money against possibly getting £5m? They'll appeal.

 

[Woody]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, you misunderstand HMRC's approach.

Changes to IR35/private sector have yielded more money. Not all people / companies challenge that. Lose a bit of money against possibly getting £5m? They'll appeal.

This case related to Lineker's income for a period ending five years ago, from a publicly-funded body. I'm not sure how the more recent private sector IR35 reform is relevant to that.

In any case, I dread to think what the "bit of money" HMRC lost pursuing this was.