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
-
HMRC writes to non-domiciled taxpayers following rule changes
HMRC has begun issuing “one-to-many” letters to individuals affected by recent changes to the tax rules for non-UK domiciled taxpayers. The letters prompt recipients to review their tax position under the new regime. What does this mean if you receive one?
-
Can officers ignore minor input tax errors?
If your business has claimed input tax on an invoice where the supplier has charged VAT incorrectly, HMRC can disallow your claim by issuing an assessment. Can the officer waive that power to achieve a common sense outcome?
-
Practical guide: Tax-efficient will planning with residential property
An individual has a significant property portfolio which provides them with their sole source of income. They want to gift shares in some property to their daughter but retain the income. Can they do this without triggering the reservation of benefit rules?






This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.