Ex-Liverpool star loses IR35 case
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has found in favour of HMRC regarding the application of IR35 rules to former Liverpool and England footballer Phil Thompson’s work for Sky. What’s the full story?
HMRC asserted that additional tax of almost £300,000 was payable because Phil Thompson’s (T’s) work for Sky, via his personal service company, was inside the IR35 rules. The rules essentially ensure that PAYE income tax and Class 1 NIC are due if a contractor would be an employee but for the insertion of an intermediary, e.g. a personal service company. Many TV personalities, radio presenters and sports commentators have found their careers being scrutinised at the tax tribunals and higher courts over the same issue in recent years, with very mixed results.
This time, HMRC was victorious, and the FTT agreed that the anti-avoidance legislation did apply. This is because the relationship between T and Sky was consistent with that of employment, due to the lack of income from other projects and the level of control Sky had over T’s other work. Each of these cases is highly dependent on the specific facts but, in similar cases won by the taxpayer, the individual is usually very well established and involved in many different projects because of that. In contrast, T is only closely associated with the TV programme he works on at Sky TV.
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?