Following a PAYE compliance investigation launched by the Revenue against a contractor in 2002, Lawspeed was instructed under its prevention and representation scheme to represent the contractor in relation to the revenueís claim that IR35 applied to the contract arrangements.
The case involved virtually identical facts to those applying to Gordon Stutchbury of Synaptek Ltd (the contractor that failed in his IR35 High Court Appeal). The contractor worked through the same agency, under the same contract terms, and supplied services at a similar Government Department.
The decision that the arrangements were outside IR35 was made by a senior status officer following representations put forward by Lawspeed. Whilst it is important to look at the underlying circumstances and not just the contracts, this result proves that even contracts that on the face of it contain sufficient indicators to convince the General Commissioners and the High Court that IR35 should apply can be properly defended.
The Status Officer in this case did not give extended reasons as to why he determined that the arrangements were outside IR35. Present in the case were many of the factors that caused Mr Stutchbury to lose his case, but a key difference was that the contractor worked on a project and not as part of a team. Lawspeed has long argued that the existence of a project is essential to take most cases outside IR35, and that getting proper professional help as soon as issues arise is important to achieve a positive outcome.
PCG Chairman, Simon Griffiths, congratulated Lawspeed, This demonstrates once again that, regardless of the strength of the case, appropriate professional advice at the earliest possible stage may have a crucial effect on the result.
Lawspeed continues to offer a prevention and representation service designed to help contractors operate outside IR35.
Lawspeed wins IR35 case for contractor on same terms as Synaptek
.