There are several points worth noting. The tests do not reflect all of the factors that the tribunals usually consider when deciding an IR35 case. Some are included, but others, such as the following, are not:
- extent and degree of control exercised by the client over the worker;
- mutuality of obligations between the worker and the client;
- provision of equipment;
- the existence of employee rights;
- whether the worker was part and parcel of the client's organisation;
- whether the worker free to undertake other work;
- mutuality of intentions.
Curiously, some of these factors are alluded to in some of the example scenarios contained within the guidance but do not form part of the risk assessment scoring.
Some of the ‘big score’ tests – for example the business premises test – clearly do not apply for many businesses and business start-ups in particular. Also, with advances in technology, it is perfectly feasible that many businesses operate from the home of the proprietor. The assistance test is also difficult for many new businesses which often rely on the specialist skills of the proprietor.
The scoring system does reflect the importance of a substitution clause but, following the Autoclenz case, there is a much greater weighting for actually invoking the substitution clause. The weighting of the scoring means that if the contract has a substitution clause and actually uses a substitute, this will automatically take the worker into the low risk category.
If a business finds that it is unable to meet the business premises test, the efficiency test, actual substitution test and the assistance test, then a business cannot fall within the low risk category.