I fear I've been misunderstood. I fully accept the tribunal has to determine what the hypothetical contract would say.
Do the tribunals not apply a three stage process:
1) Find the terms of the actual contractual arrangements.
2) Ascertain the terms of the “hypothetical contract”.
3) Consider whether the hypothetical contract would be a contract of employment.
At what point are they ascertaining "whether there is a hypothetical contract"?
I would be the first to admit that I'm no IR35 expert, but is the wording of this article correct?
"the tribunal looked at whether there was a hypothetical contract"
"The first tier tribunal (FTT) has to look at whether there is a hypothetical contract"
Surely the hypothetical contract is imagined - it doesn't actually exist, and the FTT doesn't need to look for it. The FTT's job was to consider what such a contract would have said, if it did exist?
My answers
I fear I've been misunderstood. I fully accept the tribunal has to determine what the hypothetical contract would say.
Do the tribunals not apply a three stage process:
1) Find the terms of the actual contractual arrangements.
2) Ascertain the terms of the “hypothetical contract”.
3) Consider whether the hypothetical contract would be a contract of employment.
At what point are they ascertaining "whether there is a hypothetical contract"?
I would be the first to admit that I'm no IR35 expert, but is the wording of this article correct?
"the tribunal looked at whether there was a hypothetical contract"
"The first tier tribunal (FTT) has to look at whether there is a hypothetical contract"
Surely the hypothetical contract is imagined - it doesn't actually exist, and the FTT doesn't need to look for it. The FTT's job was to consider what such a contract would have said, if it did exist?