Lineker not employed by BBC after all
I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to tell everyone he never said such thingFuck me I can’t believe Pointy was wrong about this
Stunned here me
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.I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to tell everyone he never said such thing![]()
You were right all along then.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.
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,You were right all along then.
I knew you wouldn't agree.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'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.
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.I knew you wouldn't agree.![]()
You disagree that you were disagreeing.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.
Well, until HMRC appeal..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.
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 disagree with your position that I disagree I was disagreeing.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?
Well, until HMRC appeal..
Lineker is still a bellend though.
You think anyone creating and running this place has a life?Or, does he have a life?
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.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, you misunderstand HMRC's approach.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.