LLP / right of substitution / payment for right of substitution

Hi, I have a fairly niche question, related to how the members of an LLP can show that they can "pay for a substitute". Situation: medical LLP with multiple designated members, all in the same specialty (so they can all provide the same type of services and can substitute each other in real life without any issues), delivering services to a client via a contract of services. The members submit their hours/services worked to the LLP and the LLP sends a single (collated) bill to the client. Then the LLP gets paid for the services its members provide to the client (as a single amount), and the profits get divided as per the members' agreement. So the money goes in the LLP collective pot and then it gets divided. The members are not paid directly by the client. When the LLP members apply the CEST tool, this asks "would you have to pay for a substitute?". What is the correct answer (Yes/No), based on the model described above? It must be "yes" for the substitution to be real, otherwise it is replacement. Let's say for example that Member A can't deliver their contracted services and asks Member B to cover. Member B cover the services and adds them to their services for the month, when submitting their monthly spreadsheet. The client then pays the LLP, without knowing exactly which of its members has delivered the services. The money for the services is exactly the same amount, and it is paid to the LLP. Recognising they have done more work, the LLP pays Member B a higher share of the profits. Is this enough to imply substitution, or is it replacement? Is the fact that the money comes into the partnership and the profits get distributed according to the work actually delivered sufficient to be recognised as substitution? Or would it be preferable for Member A to receive that share of profit (purely because they had originally contracted the services, even if they haven't delivered them), and then pass the royalties on to Member B, who has done the work?

Hi tzytzy,
Based on the information you have provided, under the terms of ESM10050 the answer would be No.
As Member A isn't paying Member B (who would then be classed as a replacement) to do the work.
They are only asking them to take their place.
The client is paying a 3rd party (the Partnership) without any idea of who has carried out the work and the 3rd party works out the allocation of the fees accordingly.
ESM11050 - Check Employment Status For Tax: Personal Service - Does the worker pay the substitute?
Thank you.