Tax Writer
Share this content

IR35 costs project manager £74,528


Robert Lee’s work for the Nationwide Building Society was found to fall within IR35, which led to a tax and NIC bill of £74,528, before the addition of interest and penalties.

1st May 2020
Tax Writer
Share this content

Robert Lee was a project manager who worked through his personal services company: Northern Lights Solutions Ltd. He has lost his IR35 appeal [TC07594], with the FTT finding that factors such as control and lack of financial risk pointed to the relationship between Lee and his customer being a contract of employment.

Series of contracts

Except for a contract with the Lloyds Banking Group between November 2012 and April 2013, Northern Lights provided Lee’s project management services solely to the Nationwide Building Society during the periods under appeal.

Northern Lights entered into seven contracts with Nationwide via agencies between 1 February 2012 and 19 December 2014.

Register for free to continue reading

It’s 100% free and provides unlimited access to the latest accounting news, advice and insight every day. As well as access to this exclusive article, you can:

View all AccountingWEB content
Comment on articles
Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By dgilmour51
04th May 2020 12:25

I suppose one can assume, therefore, that Corporation Tax and employers NI Northern Lights was illegally taken and that interest will be settled before it is credited back, presumably at NPV.

Thanks (1)
Replying to dgilmour51:
By cfield
04th May 2020 15:35

Too late! The 4 years is up. Always worth waiting 4 years before clobbering someone with IR35. I hope he emptied the company of money before the enquiry started and kept retained profits low. Make them go whistle.

Sounds like Robert Lee got a raw deal. They've obviously moved the goalposts on substitution. I always thought the contract was sacrosanct on this. So long as it is unfettered and capable of being exercised, it matters not if it has not been, or will not be, exercised. That's what I always thought and I've been dealing with IR35 for 20 years. I suppose they're arguing that the clause is incapable of being exercised, but difficult is not the same as impossible.

As for control, where on earth are they going to draw the line on this? Every self employed person is controlled by the client to some extent. You can tell a plumber to use copper pipes not plastic, to use moisture resistant plasterboard for your bathroom walls if you see him putting up cheap stuff or backerboard for the floor if he was going to lay plywood. Does that make him your employee? Let's hope not!

I always thought control excluded things that were required by law or company policy such as IT security. This guff about a "highly regulated business" sounds like a convenient excuse to me. All financial services are highly regulated now.

The FTT is becoming more and more capricious. It really does depend now on who hears the case. A bit more consistency would be very welcome. Unfortunately, it seems the FTT is becoming influenced by the views of politicians who really seem to have it in for contractors now.

Thanks (1)
By SteveHa
04th May 2020 13:49

I haven't read the case notes, but based on the above there are a couple of things that strike me as wrong, and which could be over-turned on appeal:

On the right of substitution, this was disregarded because "it would be difficult". I'm not so sure that ease or lack of is valid argument against something being possible.

And on control, "heavy regulation" would also appear to be a red herring. Gas fitters are also regulated, as are financial advisors, but no-one seems to be arguing that the regulation makes them employees.

I hope that he takes this to appeal.

Thanks (2)
Replying to SteveHa:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
04th May 2020 15:21

Good points.

Thanks (0)
By IrwinSchiff
20th May 2020 16:45

Absolutely absurd judgment, he should definitely appeal. For one thing, the statement 'Lee was not subject to any financial risk beyond that of an employee ' is completely untrue. He does not have the same job security as an employee, does not benefit from any pension contributions as an employee does and he does not get holiday, sick pay or pay for jury duty. His company can also held liable for negligence.

Thanks (0)