Step three
Step three
Once an individual had entered into agreement with Jarvis, and at the request of Moir, the individual confirmed to his or her employment agency that Moir was the relevant entity which would invoice the employment agency (or end-client) on behalf of the individual.
The individual was then subcontracted, usually via an employment agency, to provide services for an end-client. Once an individual had entered into the agreements with Jarvis and begun their work engagement with the end-client, Moir invoiced the employment agency or end-client for the individual’s work. These invoices were based upon the time worked by the individual, and were paid at the rate agreed by the end-client for that individual’s services. This could be daily, hourly, or occasional, depending on the prevailing practice in that organisation.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Burden of proof in these proceedings
- Procedural point
- Evidence before the FTT
- Additional background facts
- The arrangements under consideration
- Step one
- Step two
- Step three
- Step four
- Issue 1 - was Moir a “promoter” of “notifiable arrangements” as defined by sections 306 and 307 FA 2004 ?
- Issue 2 - if so, did Moir fail to comply with its obligations under sections 308 and 313A FA 2004 ?
- Issue 3 – if so, does Moir have a reasonable excuse for its non-compliance?
- Issue 4 - if not, what quantum of penalty is Moir liable to pay?
- Conclusions
![TC09681 - [2025] UKFTT 01333 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)