Interesting IR35 case

https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j12631/TC%2008697.pdf

Didn't find your answer?

Taxpayer won. Previous Autoclenz quasi sham concept re IR35 hypothetical contract terms (recently rejected by CoA) seems to have been (partially) reinvented in paras 106 & 125 as "intention of the parties, objectively ascertained, has to be gathered partly from documents but also from oral exchanges and conduct" per Lord Hoffmann’s guidance in Carmichael v National Power Plc [1999] UKHL 47, [1999] 1 WLR 2042.

https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j12631/TC...

However, unlike Autoclenz, it does not seem to address what happens where the oral/written agreement conflicts with the parties' conduct (quasi sham).

Para 126 is helpful re "business on his own account" factor (otherwise on a narrow view it could never be met if operating via a company).

Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
09th Apr 2024 17:39

This case considered this issue re a CJRS claim and it seems a high hurdle for HMRC to disturb the written (self) employment agreement terms.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/247

Thanks (0)