Control is one of the core employment status tests used to determine whether a particular engagement falls within or outside the IR35 rules.
Although the concept of control may seem self-evident at first glance, when you examine contracts and day-to-day working practices, it is clear why so many status decisions turn on this one factor alone.
In simple terms, control is about who decides how an engagement is carried out.
This doesn’t involve only the overall outcome, such as an identifiable deliverable, but also the steps taken to get there.
It also includes when the work happens and, in some cases, where it takes place.
These elements together give a sense of whether a contractor is genuinely running their own business or working in a way that mirrors employment under the client’s control. The key question is where the right of control actually sits.
If you are checking a control clause in a live contract, our IR35 Clause and Reality Checker is a guidance tool for comparing the wording with how control operates in practice.
You can read more about the other key factors, including substitution and MOO, in our overview of IR35 status tests.
HMRC’s approach to ‘control’
HMRC usually takes a broad view. The Employment Status Manual guidance, including sections such as ESM0510, explains that control is the client’s right to direct a worker’s activities.
If the client can set the worker’s hours, shift priorities, or move the contractor between tasks, HMRC often views this as a pointer towards employment.
This helps explain why many organisations lean heavily on control when completing status determination statements under the off payroll rules.
This is also reflected in HMRC’s Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool.
CEST places considerable weight on questions about supervision, schedule and how work is allocated.
What about tribunals?
Tribunals take a closer look at the underlying relationship between client and worker.
They are interested in the rights each party actually holds, not just how parties typically interact.
For example, a contractor can be left largely self-sufficient, yet still fall within IR35 if the client has the authority to intervene.
Judges often examine:
- whether the contractor chooses the method or whether the client reserves the right to decide it
- who determines the order of work
- whether hours are fixed or negotiable
- whether the individual can be reassigned to unrelated tasks
- what happens if there is disagreement over how something should be delivered
These questions reveal the structure of the engagement. A contractor who controls their own method and schedule usually operates with a degree of independence that suggests they are not employed.
A client who can dictate these terms, even if that power is rarely used, is usually seen as holding a controlling position.
What control looks like in day-to-day work
Control often manifests itself in smaller decisions rather than major ones.
Here are some examples often mentioned by contractors:
- being required to work set hours
- needing approval for holidays or time away from the project
- being allocated tasks using the same system as permanent staff
- following detailed internal procedures rather than broader policies
- having work checked step by step instead of against the final deliverable
Conversely, engagements outside IR35 typically indicate that the contractor controls how the service is delivered.
That might include deciding the technical approach, agreeing on timelines rather than having them imposed, or treating significant changes as variations rather than automatic instructions.
Control sits alongside other status factors (one of the ‘holy trilogy’ of factors).
If a contractor has a genuine right to provide a substitute, the client’s ability to control how the work is performed is naturally reduced.
Our substitution guide covers this in more depth at proving you have the right to provide a substitute.
Control is also closely linked with questions about ongoing obligations, which we cover in our guide on mutuality of obligation.
Why control still matters
Most large organisations operate in a structured way, which can give the impression that a contractor is under the client’s control simply because they are part of a wider project.
Tribunals are careful to distinguish between coordination and direction. That distinction was important in Jensal Software Ltd v HMRC, where the contractor’s specialist autonomy helped undermine HMRC’s control argument.
Being asked to attend stand-ups or work on-site does not automatically place someone under control.
What matters is whether the client can dictate the way the work is carried out if circumstances change.
This is why you should always keep any documentation safe.
If a contractor sets the method, negotiates the timing, and retains control over technical decisions, those details can make a difference when a status determination statement is challenged.
Read more in our guide to status determination statements and client responsibilities.
A simple way to think about control
Control is less about how collaborative a project feels and more about where the authority sits.
If the contractor retains control over method and schedule and the client focuses on outcomes, the engagement leans toward self-employment.
If the client has the right to direct the work, set hours, or reassign tasks, it leans the other way.
Control is only one part of the broader IR35 picture.
Taken together with mutuality, substitution, financial risk, and the other key employment status tests, it helps build a realistic view of whether a contractor is genuinely in business on their own account or working in a manner closer to employment.