[varispeed]

I have not agreed with you. I said the plumber providing services to individuals falls outside Chapter 10 entirely, which is why your example was irrelevant. I then pointed out that if that same plumber provided services to a corporation, they would be subject to the same status determination as anyone else, because IR35 does not care what trade you are in. You claimed plumbers fall outside IR35 because of the nature of their work. They do not. When providing services to individuals they self-declare their status, which can still be challenged. When providing services to a corporation meeting Chapter 10 criteria, the client performs the determination. The distinction is about who the services are provided to, not what the trade is. Those are different things.

Where you have been inaccurate, since you asked: you claimed IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers as though that were a meaningful distinction. You claimed number of clients determines IR35 status. It does not. Each engagement is assessed individually. You presented plumbers as categorically outside IR35 by nature of their trade. They are not, as above. You have consistently described IR35 as a simple checklist when it is an engagement-by-engagement assessment triggered by the ownership structure of the supplying company.

You say "three different types of contract create different working structures." The working structure is the day-to-day reality of how the work is performed. Three people doing the same work, at the same desk, on the same equipment, during the same hours, for the same client, have the same working structure. They have different contracts because the law imposes different requirements depending on who owns the company supplying the labour. The contract is the product of the legal framework, not the other way around.

You say the law is trying to "ensure an employer/employee cannot reduce the tax they pay." A worker running their own company is not an employee reducing anything. They are a business owner retaining the value of their own labour. The legislation starts from the assumption that a worker's natural state is employment and their company is an artificial structure to be looked through. That assumption is never applied to any other type of business. Nobody asks whether a consultancy's corporate structure is artificial, or whether its employees would be the client's employees "if engaged directly." The question is only asked when the worker owns the business, because the underlying assumption is that workers do not legitimately own businesses - they merely operate through them. That is the class assumption I have been describing from the start.

Same question, still unanswered: why is the test scoped by ownership of the supplying company rather than applied universally?

[scott_w]

> you claimed IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers as though that were a meaningful distinction

No I didn’t. I wouldn’t make this claim because I asked an accountant exactly this question 8 years ago, so I know this is not the case. Clearly you can’t read so it’s a waste of my Friday night trying to argue with someone who insists on being wrong and displays no reading comprehension.

> Same question, still unanswered: why is the test scoped by ownership of the supplying company rather than applied universally?

One last time: because it’s not. We have literally just discussed the plumber example where, depending on the customer, working contract, etc. you agreed with me that IR35 scope is not applied based solely on the ownership of the company. I really do not know what to say any more. You are asserting two opposing things are true at the same time.

[varispeed]

You wrote, in your second reply: "First off, IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers, it only applies to a worker contracting via a limited company." That is inaccurate, and it is what you wrote. Claiming now that you didn't say it does not change the record.

On the plumber: I did not agree with you. The plumber's company is in scope of IR35 precisely because the plumber owns it. That is the ownership trigger I have been describing throughout. Who they deliver services to determines whether they can self-declare their status or whether the client performs the determination. That is a procedural question about who makes the assessment, not about whether the regime applies. The regime applies because of ownership. A large plumbing company sending an employee to do the same job, at the same location, under the same conditions, never enters this framework at all.

These are not two opposing things. The ownership structure is what brings the regime into existence. The nature of the client determines who performs the status assessment. You are confusing the two and presenting that confusion as a contradiction in my argument.

You have now resorted to questioning my reading comprehension rather than answering the question. The question remains: why does this regime target worker-owned companies specifically, rather than applying a universal status test to all companies supplying labour in identical conditions?

[scott_w]

> You wrote, in your second reply: "First off, IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers, it only applies to a worker contracting via a limited company."

Apologies, I misread and thought you said I claimed IR35 does apply, which is why I answered the opposite. In which case, let me state my position clearly:

IR35 is not applicable to a self-employed individual because they are not a limited company. There is no field on the Self Assessment Tax Return to declare yourself in-scope of IR35, which I can confirm having filled out SA forms since 2018. I have no idea why you think it can be applied. It just can't.

> The plumber's company is in scope of IR35 precisely because the plumber owns it.

That is not what "In Scope of IR35" means at all. In Scope is, as we have both said above, based on the contract and work arrangements, which would either be "In Scope" because the arrangement mirrors an employment, or "Out of Scope" because the plumber is functionally self-employed, just contracting from within a limited company.

Also, this is part of why I say you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You say it's nothing to do with ownership structure and everything to do with ownership structure at the same time!

> The ownership structure is what brings the regime into existence.

This is what would trigger the test but it does not mean a company or arrangement is in or out of scope. That has to be applied based on the contract and working arrangements.

> why does this regime target worker-owned companies specifically, rather than applying a universal status test to all companies supplying labour in identical conditions?

You're basically asking "why does IR35 exist?" and the answer can be found by literally Googling it: it targets contracted workers who would pay less tax than an employee in exactly the same working arrangements. That is the top and bottom of it and has always been the case.

Why doesn't it target consulting companies? Because their employees are already employed! They already pay the full Income Tax and National Insurance!

I question your reading comprehension because I already fucking answered this question above:

> In an IR35 in-scope arrangement, the one-person limited company would otherwise pay themselves up to the income tax exemption threshold. They would then take a dividend for the rest of the payment, which isn't subject to NI payments, reducing revenue intake to the government.

[varispeed]

You have finally stated your position plainly: IR35 exists because a worker running their own company would pay less tax than an employee in the same working arrangement. Thank you. Now let me explain why that reasoning is exactly the class assumption I have been describing.

The worker is not an employee. They are a business owner. Every limited company in the country pays its directors a combination of salary and dividends, and pays corporation tax on profits. That is not a loophole. That is how companies work. The only reason it is treated as a problem is that the person who owns this particular company also does the work, and the assumption is that a person who does work cannot legitimately own a business - they are merely disguising employment.

That assumption flips every principle of good business on its head. For any normal business, having repeat customers is a sign of quality and reliability. For a worker-owned business, it is evidence of disguised employment. For any normal business, long-term client relationships are commercially valuable. For a worker-owned business, they are suspicious. The entire framework starts from the premise that the business is not real and works backwards from there.

You say the consultancy's employees "already pay full Income Tax and National Insurance" as though that settles it. The small business owner earning more than both the employee and the consultancy worker will pay more tax, because they earn more and do not have the instruments available to larger companies exempt from this regime to reduce their tax burden - transfer pricing, offshore margin routing, intercompany structures. The framing asks you to compare only the worker's personal tax position to an employee's, while ignoring that the entity capturing the surplus in the consultancy model contributes far less to the Treasury. That is designed to make employees resent the business owner while the consultancy extracting more value and contributing less tax is never part of the conversation. You have just demonstrated this perfectly.

You say I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth. I am not. The ownership structure triggers the regime. The contract and working arrangements determine the outcome of the assessment within that regime. These are two separate stages. The first stage - who gets subjected to this test at all - is determined by ownership. A large plumbing company sending an employee to the same job under the same conditions is never tested. That is the asymmetry. You keep describing the second stage as though it answers my question about the first.

[scott_w]

> The worker is not an employee.

Yes they are. That’s the point of IR35 and why it’s not a class issue. If the person wants to be a business owner, then operate as a self-employed contractor and not an employee.

It’s nothing to do with class.

> For any normal business, having repeat customers is a sign of quality

They’re not a “repeat customer,” they’re the only “customer.” I gave examples of real business, this includes many IT contractors that I’ve worked with. I pointed out many other trades do not typically fall into IR35 because they operate as self-employed business owners.

> The small business owner earning more than both the employee and the consultancy worker

You’re comparing two different sized paycheques, it’s apples and oranges. I don’t accept your assertion that one always gets paid more than the other.

> The framing asks you to compare only the worker's personal tax position to an employee's

Because that’s what IR35 is targeting for the reason I stated, not because of class.

> while ignoring that the entity capturing the surplus

Irrelevant. They’re completely different types of work and working arrangement. The employee embedded in the company is acting like an employee and are taxed as one.

> The ownership structure triggers the regime.

It triggers the test, it does not determine the outcome. The outcome is, fundamentally, based on whether the worker acts as an employee or a self employed contractor. Class doesn’t come into it.

[varispeed]

You just wrote: "If the person wants to be a business owner, then operate as a self-employed contractor and not an employee." That is the class assumption, stated plainly. You are telling a person who incorporated a company, took on commercial risk, and invoices for their services that they are an employee until they prove otherwise. No one says this to any other type of business. No one tells a consultancy that its embedded workers are "actually employees of the client" and demands they prove otherwise. The presumption of illegitimacy only runs one way.

You say "they're not a repeat customer, they're the only customer." A business with one large account is still a business. Plenty of legitimate companies derive the majority of their revenue from a single client. No one questions their legitimacy. A defence contractor with one government contract is not told it is disguised employment. A law firm with one anchor client is not subjected to a status test. This suspicion is reserved exclusively for worker-owned companies.

You say the consultancy comparison is "irrelevant" and "completely different types of work and working arrangement." You keep asserting this. I keep asking you to explain what is different about the work when the person is at the same desk, same hours, same equipment, same client, same duration. You have never answered this. You answer with "the contracts are different," which is the product of the legal framework, not an independent fact.

You say "class doesn't come into it" and "it triggers the test, it does not determine the outcome." I have not claimed ownership determines the outcome. I have asked, repeatedly, why ownership determines who gets tested. You have now acknowledged that it does. A large company supplying a worker in identical conditions is never tested. You say that is because their worker is "already an employee." Right - employed by a company that captures the margin. When the worker owns the company and keeps the margin themselves, suddenly a test is needed. The variable is not the nature of the work. The variable is who keeps the profit. That is a class distinction.