Court of Appeal rules in contractors' favour
A TV presenter won a high-profile Upper Tribunal case regarding her employment status under the IR35 rules. HMRC appealed against this, but the Court of Appeal has just rejected its argument. What happened?
HMRC’s argument was that the Upper Tribunal had interpreted a key piece of case law incorrectly. The case in question sets out the factors that should be considered, such as mutuality of obligation, personal service and others. HMRC argued that whether someone is “in business on their own account” (i.e. other factors) should be given little weight, and even argued that considering this would be an onerous compliance burden for HMRC. In a decision published today, the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected this argument, stating that circumstances known to both parties at the date of the contract, e.g. the fact that the person providing the work has an established career as a freelance worker, should be taken into account. This is a huge win for all contractors, particularly those providing personal services.
The decision on whether, overall, there would have existed an employment relationship in this case was remitted back to the Upper Tribunal.
Related Topics
-
Selling spare items to your company
You’re short of cash but if you use the traditional methods to take more money out of your company you’ll pay higher rate taxes. Is there another way to extract profits without paying income tax or NI?
-
No such thing as a (tax) free lunch?
You run a small consultancy company and treat your staff to lunch in the office once a week. Your bookkeeper says it’s a taxable benefit in kind because staff lunches are only exempt if they are provided in a workplace canteen. Is this correct?
-
Judge criticises use of fabricated AI-generated cases in HMRC appeal
A tax tribunal judge has criticised the use of apparently fabricated case references generated by artificial intelligence in an appeal against HMRC. The incident highlights growing concerns over the use of AI tools in legal and tax proceedings. What happened?