Interesting IR35 case

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.

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.

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.

Thanks (0)