HMRC wins IR35 case concerning BBC presenter

BBC building in London
istock_mikeinlondon_aw
Share this content

HMRC has defeated a BBC presenter in the first IR35 ruling since 2011. The first tier tribunal (FTT) ruled the TV personality’s contract was caught by IR35 and landed her company with a £420,000 bill.

Former ‘Look North’ presenter Christa Ackroyd lost her appeal against the tax authority when the FTT ruled that her personal service company (Christa Ackroyd Media Ltd), owed income tax and national insurance contributions (NICs) amounting to £419,151 covering tax years: 2006/07 to 2012/13.

This judgment (TC06334) is the first of a number of IR35 appeals involving television presenters who operated through personal service companies, following the mass IR35 clampdown in October 2016, with further rulings likely to arrive later this year. It is also the first IR35 case to be reported in seven years, and the first comprehensively won by HMRC since 2009.

Freelance status

Ackroyd co-presented the BBC's Look North programme and was engaged through her company, Christa Ackroyd Media Ltd (CAM), by the BBC on a seven-year contract to provide her services up to 225 days per year.

It was reported in 2013 that after a three-month period spent off air, Ackroyd had been sacked by the corporation following an alleged dispute surrounding her freelance status and payment of tax.

Court documents showed that the BBC terminated the arrangement following HMRC’s formal demand against Ackroyd’s company for unpaid tax, despite the insistence by the BBC that she offer her services through a limited company.

Contract of service or contract for services?

Ackroyd contended that her status for the purposes of the IR35 legislation was that of a self-employed contractor, and there was no further tax liability on the part of CAM Ltd.

HMRC argued that hypothetically she was engaged under a contract of service rather than a contract for services, therefore she should be treated as an employee of the BBC. The IR35 rules were thus in point, and her company was required to pay the appropriate amount of tax and NICs based on here deemed employment.

The FTT sided with HMRC, deciding that Ackroyd could not fairly be described as being in business on her own account. The ruling stated that she was “economically dependent on the hypothetical contract with the BBC”, which took up most if not all of her working time.

“In our view,” stated the judge, “a hypothetical contract of that length for at least 225 days per year and terminable only for a material breach points towards a contract of employment.”

According the ruling, the existence of a seven-year contract meant that Ackroyd’s work at the BBC was pursuant to a highly stable, regular and continuous arrangement. “It involved a high degree of continuity rather than a succession of short-term engagements,” stated the case notes. “That is a pointer towards an employment contract.”

Indicators of employment

According to ContractorCalculator’s Dave Chaplin, the key factors around Ackroyd’s employment status were:

  • Ackroyd accepted that the BBC ultimately had the right to specify what services CAM Ltd would provide
  • The court determined that, through the editor, the BBC would have control over content, given its editorial responsibility
  • Ackroyd’s contract restricted her from providing services to other organisations in the UK without the consent of the BBC
  • Ackroyd was contractually obliged to perform the services, and the BBC was contractually obliged to pay fees to CAM Ltd on a monthly basis
  • CAM Ltd was prohibited from using a substitute for Ackroyd

While this was the first appeal in a number of other cases involving television presenters and personal service companies, the FTT was at pains to state that this is not a lead case.

HMRC did not wish to comment on this individual case, but a spokesperson told AccountingWEB: “Employment status is never a matter of choice; it is always dictated by the facts and when the wrong tax is being paid we put things right.”

Ackroyd ‘a scapegoat’

Reacting to the case, Dave Chaplin from ContractorCalculator stated that he has “a lot of sympathy” for Ackroyd.

“Christa Ackroyd believes she has been victimised by the BBC and made a scapegoat following an internal inquiry into the BBC’s use of freelancers … the BBC encouraged her to work this way and her advisors were clearly out of their depth on IR35. 

“Unfortunately for Ms Ackroyd, whilst the case looks clear cut, it appears the tribunal made a decision based on facts cherry picked by HMRC, and HMRC has effectively put her out of a job; HMRC did not even speak to her before making its judgement and reached its conclusion on inadequate information.”

Significant case

Andy Chamberlain, IPSE’s deputy director of policy, commented: “This case is significant as it shows that the original IR35 legislation, deeply flawed though it is, can be made to work when HMRC actually enforce it.

“The current drive to push all the tax liability onto the client from the outset is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Last year’s change to the way IR35 works in the public sector has essentially stopped contracting in the sector altogether, robbing it of vital specialist skills and damaging public services. If the Government extends those IR35 reforms to the private sector, as it has signalled it wants to, it will damage not only our flexible labour market, but the UK economy as a whole.”

While this case heard at the FTT sets no legal precedent, according to Chaplin it clearly demonstrates that some organisations are avoiding their tax obligations by encouraging would-be-employees to engage with them using limited companies.

“Whilst this activity is not widespread,” continued Chaplin, “HMRC is very likely to use this case, and others coming up, to reinforce its arguments that the IR35 reforms should be rolled out to the private sector, bolstering HMRC’s claim that there is an immediate threat to the exchequer.

“Contractors can no longer afford to take a laissez fairer attitude to compliance, otherwise they could easily find themselves assessed as inside IR35 by their clients when the changes come in.

“HMRC is coming. You need to prepare.”

About Tom Herbert

Tom is editor at AccountingWEB, responsible for all editorial content on the site. If you have any comments or suggestions for us get in touch.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By mabzden
15th Feb 2018 16:47

Although the tax bill of £420K sounds horrendous, presumably there will be a downward adjustment to the CT bills for the periods covered.

But, given restrictions on the expenses allowable, Employers' NI, the favorable tax treatment of dividends etc, it sounds like there will still be a lot of tax and NI to pay.

And all this without Christopher Lunn even being involved. Impressive.

Thanks (1)
16th Feb 2018 08:52

It's ironic, in my (humble) opinion that, this initial high profile case, involves; the BBC and, more importantly a woman. Christa Ackroyd was also a very professional and experienced broadcaster.
The BBC has effectively proved, from recent "events" that it has little regard for; any employment, or equal rights legislation and, from what the commentary suggests above; - "Court documents showed that the BBC terminated the arrangement following HMRC’s formal demand against Ackroyd’s company for unpaid tax, despite the insistence by the BBC that she offer her services through a limited company".
One can only assume, from the outcome of this ruling that the BBC, who presumably "avoided" payment of employers NIC, throughout this period, are now expected to make good, that loss, to the Crown?
The BBC and, particularly those responsible for this disgraceful situation, should hang their heads in shame.
It's still a (It's a man's, man's world -Songwriters: Betty Newsome / Betty Jean Newsome / James Brown) and, these days, I'm also ashamed to admit that I am one.

Thanks (5)
avatar
to Chris.Mann
16th Feb 2018 09:27

So if the case was brought against a male presenter that is OK but if it is brought against a female, it is sexist and you are embarrassed to be a man?

Enough said.

Thanks (3)
to Rammstein1
16th Feb 2018 10:51

With respect, please don't pervert my genuine and sincere commentary.
I believe that I went to some trouble to provide balance within my narration and, if some of the content troubles you, its regretful although, fortunately, not that important.

Thanks (7)
avatar
to Chris.Mann
19th Feb 2018 09:49

Chris.Mann wrote:

With respect, please don't pervert my genuine and sincere commentary.
I believe that I went to some trouble to provide balance within my narration and, if some of the content troubles you, its regretful although, fortunately, not that important.

Your commentary has not been perverted in anyway and I think you need to re-read what you wrote and what has been written by the responder carefully.

You mentioned in your post that it is more importantly, a woman that has been brought to the IR35 case.

Why was that needed to be a point? This was to do with a person working with the BBC who fell under the IR35 rules. It's that simple.

Your reply would have been altered significantly if it was a "Mr J Smith" who got reprimanded for this sort of thing, simply due to the fact they are male.

What I'm trying to say is that the fact the BBC presenter is female is wholly irrelevant to the fact that she fell under IR35 regulations, that the BBC should've picked that up and HMRC have made a correct finding against her.

I'm sure other people, of both genders, will now be brought up against this too.

Thanks (4)
avatar
to Chris.Mann
19th Feb 2018 08:48

Seems that everything has to have a gender and sex slant these days. That was my thought after scanning the page of an online news site this morning.

Then I came here and, even where the issue is about tax - no, someone brings gender and discrimination into it - regardless of whether it has any bearing or not.

I'm going to stop reading any mass audience stuff for a while. At least until they find a different drum to bang. I'm completely bored of this one.

Also slightly insulted that I've never been offered a sex/promotion trade-off. Had to read lots of tax books instead :(

Thanks (10)
avatar
to AnnAccountant
19th Feb 2018 08:50

By the way - I didn't censor above. It isn't a rude word you know.

Maybe this is part of the problem. Even using the correct words for things in an adult way is deemed something to be ashamed of and to hide behind asterisks - even though everyone knows what the word is.

I give up. I really do.

Thanks (2)
to AnnAccountant
19th Feb 2018 09:27

Hi AnnAccountant - thanks for commenting and my apologies for the unnecessary stars...

The site is fitted with an automated 'profanity filter' which can be a little over-enthusiastic at times. I've gone in and tweaked the settings so hopefully your comment should now show up in full.

All the best,

Tom

Thanks (1)
avatar
By rbw
to AnnAccountant
19th Feb 2018 18:09

AnnAccountant wrote:

I give up. I really do.

Please don't. Your country needs you!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cbp99
16th Feb 2018 11:19

Presumably the debt lies with the ltd company, which will be insolvent and unable to pay, and not with the individual?
Does the BBC now have to account for Paye and NIC for the period of employment?
And does the individual now have employment rights such as holiday pay that can be claimed from the BBC?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
to cbp99
19th Feb 2018 11:32

A1: YES ... the debt lies with the ltd company, which ... allegedly has some properties; however legislation might allow HMRC to go after ... the individual ... should HMRC choose to do so.

A2: Allegedly legally no; morally maybe .

A3: Don't think so.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to dstickl
19th Feb 2018 16:58

Liability of course does not rest with the BBC (which is presumably why they didn't give a monkey's and took no part in this) and the question of potential enforcement of this against the director (if the company has insufficient assets) is an interesting one. See:

https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/ir35-and-personal-liability-can-hmrc-pro...

Thanks (1)
avatar
By dstickl
to Justin Bryant
19th Feb 2018 17:06

As there allegedly are 2 directors, each holding 50 shares, and she is a journalist and he is an accountant, this seems to me - in my opinion - using whitefield's words, to be more of a case of their Freda rather than their Fred.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to dstickl
19th Feb 2018 17:47

Reading the helpful anti-BBC biased summary here, it may not be so clear cut:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/16/presenter-left-400k-tax-bill-...

Thanks (0)
avatar
to Justin Bryant
20th Feb 2018 12:55

If the taxpayer simply posts this ICAEW (unbiased) case summary to HMRC, I can't see how HMRC can transfer the liability to her without difficulty (assuming the company has insufficient assets).

https://ion.icaew.com/taxfaculty/b/weblog/posts/ir35-bites-bbc-tv-journa...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
to Justin Bryant
21st Feb 2018 09:11

I seem to remember, Justin Bryant, that my copy (which "somebody" seems to me to have borrowed) of ... IR35 Defence Strategies: From Contracts to Commissioners by David Smith (2009) Paperback ... 4th edition, had a section near the back that did precisely point out the exact contemporaneous legislation that permitted ... HMRC to transfer the liability to Director without difficulty (assuming the company has insufficient assets - and went bust).

Thanks (0)
avatar
16th Feb 2018 10:35

All this case proves is that IR35 is very effective in theory but very ineffective in practice (due to it being very laborious indeed for HMRC to enforce), which everyone knew already, so I see nothing of interest in this case as she was squarely within IR35 and I'm sure the BBC should have known that.

Thanks (1)
to Justin Bryant
16th Feb 2018 10:33

Sad face :-(

Thanks (0)
avatar
to TomHerbert
16th Feb 2018 10:45

Rather than following the herd with uninteresting cases (from a tax point of view at least), why don't you report on interesting/novel cases such as the SDLT late filing penalty case win for the taxpayer in the link below (similar to the recent income tax late filing penalty win)? A lot of your readers would be interested in that I'm sure.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/possibly-all-sdlt1-late-fili...

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Justin Bryant
16th Feb 2018 11:20

I agree with you in part. The case isn't significant and I guess HMRC picked it because it was likely to be a win based on the facts, so it doesn't represent a sea change in approach. However, the article is well written, although (mentioning no names) one or two of the comments from third parties seem a little lame. Plus, while this case might not be significant, it is topical and so I think it right for AW to report, but they should, as you suggest also report on less obvious, but important ruling such as the one you mention.

Thanks (0)
to Justin Bryant
16th Feb 2018 13:59

Thank you for your comment Justin. Despite my earlier glibness, it is appreciated.

While tax luminaries like yourself might not take too much interest in this case, it has generated plenty both in the accounting community and the wider news environment.

And I respectfully disagree with you about following the herd. a) we were one of the first to publish the story yesterday, which was on the Today programme this morning; and b) there were glaring inaccuracies in the way it was reported in the mainstream media, and as a publication for finance professionals it's up to us to get the facts right.

Thanks for flagging that case - I'll raise it with our tax editor at our next news meeting on Monday.

Have a good weekend,

Tom

Thanks (2)
avatar
to Justin Bryant
16th Feb 2018 18:42

"I see nothing of interest in this case as she was squarely within IR35 and I'm sure the BBC should have known that."

Dear Justin, I agree that she was within IR35 but I don't understand why the BBC should have had an opinion on the matter. Please explain?

It's CRM Ltd that should have paid PAYE/NIC on real or deemed salaries for Miss Ackroyd. The point of IR35 (save for now in the public sector) the customer/deemed employer does not have to think about it. I accept that in blatant cases like this it should have put her on the payroll from the start, but that does not make the BBC responsible for CRM's failure to apply IR35.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By norstar
17th Feb 2018 20:22

Like other posts, i note that the company only had reserves of 80k last year, so will be interested to see how recovery of the addressed amounts pans out. Can't see that recovery from the director is likely so buck stops with the company?

Thanks (0)
avatar
18th Feb 2018 08:12

If the ruling is that she was an employee then would she have the right to take the BBC to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal in addition to her other employment rights such as holiday pay?.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Teknicare
18th Feb 2018 11:47

No - The judgement is only effective for tax purposes. A separate action would be required to establish whether she was a worker or an employee for employment law purposes. Unless the court ruled that the company was a sham and so could be looked through there's no chance of the case succeeding. If the court made that ruling it would turn IR35 and the whole arena of operating through an intermediary on its head - IR35 wouldn't be needed. It was created for the very reason that the law doesn't allow the corporate veil to be pierced.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By dstickl
to tonycourt
19th Feb 2018 11:22

REASON: Allegedly the MOO (Mutuality Of Obligation) for an employment tribunal is more onerous than the MOO asserted by HMRC as reported by the judgment:
QUOTE
133. The mutuality of obligation to perform personally work offered and to pay remuneration is the “irreducible minimum ... necessary to create a contract of service” (see Carmichael v National Power Plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042 at 2047). The requirement of mutuality will be satisfied where there is a contractual requirement on
the employer to provide payment, in the nature of a retainer for a minimum number of hours per year, irrespective of whether those hours are actually worked (see Usetech Ltd v Young at [64]).
ENDQUOTE

Thanks (0)
avatar
to dstickl
19th Feb 2018 14:06

dstickl, I'm not sure if you were responding specifically to my comment or not. Assuming that you were I don't follow your point.

The MOO test is indeed the same for tax (IR35 and employment status in general) and employment law. However, that doesn't give the court the power to ignore the existence of the intermediary company - it cannot create the fictional situation that the worker was engaged by the end client (BBC), it can only say that if the worker had contracted directly with the engager, she would have been an employee... ergo IR35 applies.

As the law stands neither the tax tribunal nor an employment tribunal can rule that the worker had personal income or employment rights with the BBC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
to tonycourt
19th Feb 2018 17:18

... in my opinion, the quoted criteria used in the tax tribunal for IR35 MOO (in CAM Ltd) would not be a sufficient MOO for her to go [as a person, and not as a Limited Company] to an employment tribunal and successfully claim to be an employee of the BBC.

FWIW: I'm outraged by such asymmetry .

Thanks (0)
avatar
to dstickl
19th Feb 2018 18:51

Sorry, but I struggle to make sense of your comments. I'm sure you understand the issues, but I don't think you're expressing your thought processes well and this makes it tricky to understand what you're getting at. May be you are just agreeing with my comments. If not, then.......

MOO is MOO. there is no difference in its significance for IR35 or employment law. It is only one of the factors used to determine if IR35 or employment status applies.

Regardless of the strength of evidence (MOO being one factor) that pointed towards employment it is simply not possible for the worker is this case to argue she had employment rights with the BBC because there was no contract for work between her and the BBC - it was between her company and the BBC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
to tonycourt
19th Feb 2018 19:03

Let's leave it there, then .

Thanks (0)
avatar
By skeeve
to tonycourt
20th Feb 2018 09:09

Is that strictly true? IR35 relies on the veil being pierced - it’s created a deemed contract of service between the “employee” and the employer ignoring the contractual party of the Ltd company. Further it lays an obligation on the contracted party to distribute its funds in a specific manner - ie directly to the “employee” any other parties in the Ltd being ignored from a distribution perspective.

My reading has always been that for IR35 to be applicable the Ltd has to be treated as a sham -otherwise the written contract cannot be set aside in favour of the hypothetical one.

The point discussed of going to an employment tribunal has long been discussed as the Nuclear Option. It is almost worth going to an Employment Tribunal to gain definitive statement on status

Thanks (0)
avatar
to skeeve
20th Feb 2018 11:13

With respect (I mean that genuinely and not as a jibe) your understanding isn't right.

IR35 doesn't pierce the corporate veil at all. In fact the main reason for creating IR35 was because the corporate veil couldn't be pierced.

It doesn't deem there to be a contract between the "employee" and the client, and the contract between the intermediary and the client isn't (and can't be) ignored .

What IR35 does is to create a liability on the intermediary where the worker would be treated as an employee of the engager (it absolutely doesn't deem them to be an employee) if they had been engaged directly.

In the first ever IR35 case (the name escapes me for the moment, but it was largely a test case supported by one or more IT contractor organisations in an attempt to "break" IR35), the judge made it absolutely clear that the contract between the intermediary and the client can't be ignored. While HMRC would like to think otherwise, tax law can't trample on other law and override it. Instead IR35 is a means to circumnavigate it.
-
If, and only if, the contract between his or her company etc is a sham could a worker take a case to the employment tribunal. That opens up a whole new can of worms, not least a question of fraud, i.e. entering into a false contract for the purpose of avoiding tax. Equally, if it were a sham HMRC would not need IR35. It could just attack the engager for failure to operate PAYE.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By skeeve
to tonycourt
20th Feb 2018 11:17

No offence taken - I am always willing to learn :-)

I am still not sure I agree though in order to make IR35 applicable it has to set aside the corporate veil in order to establish a relationship between the Client and the Employee - or it has to set aside the corporate status of the Ltd in order to determine how it distributes income.

I will remain "confused" - if you have any clarity on how IR35 can be applicable without the above very much willing to listen

It is even more bonkers that revenue generated by employees without significant interest in the company doesn't fall into the legislation.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
to skeeve
20th Feb 2018 11:25

I like your last paragraph, skeeve, which raises this thought:

If the former BBC ‘Look North’ presenter Christa Ackroyd, and all of her ex-colleagues from BBC, were to go, to use your words ... to an Employment Tribunal to gain definitive statement on status ... on the same evidence presented at the hearing/s of the very recent Tax Tribunal ruling, then the very likely concomitant publicity might concentrate the many minds of HMG-HMT-HMRC, in my opinion, to either (A) maintain the present perceived asymmetry due to two different perspectives on the necessary criteria for the necessary MOO at each of a Tax Tribunal and an Employment Tribunal, or (B) for the postulated Employment Tribunal hearing to judge that the result of "EMPLOYEE" from a previous Tax Tribunal has to have - on the exact same facts - the same result of "EMPLOYEE" from a Employment Tribunal - in the overriding interests of justice - that not only has to be done, but it has also be seen to be done, as part of a chain of unbroken causal connections.

Thanks (0)
avatar
20th Feb 2018 12:07

"Unfortunately for Ms Ackroyd, whilst the case looks clear cut, it appears the tribunal made a decision based on facts cherry picked by HMRC "

I cannot imagine that there was any bar on Mr Summers, representing Ms Ackroyd, from presenting any facts that he thought helpful to his arguments.

Thanks (3)
avatar
19th Feb 2018 09:34

Thank you Tom. I first heard about this on a Practice Excellence webinar when John Stodyk mentioned it in passing. I think it is a significant case because it brings the matter into the headlines and I'll be using it to encourage clients to be more wary of their situation. Its also a useful reminder to small businesses who take a relaxed approach to putting their workers on PAYE. Having read through the case notes there are also a couple of really useful points on 'use of home as office' and expenses such as TV, film and journals for creative people who tend to do 'research' by watching and reading others work to remain relevant. It also reflects their vulnerability to being convinced they have control when they don't and trusting the organisation they are providing services to.
I think this underlines the dangers of 'generally accepted practice' which we've been able to work with for many years. Now there is less tolerance of this as HMRC harden their line around the issue.
Does anyone know if they propose to appeal?

Thanks (1)
avatar
19th Feb 2018 11:22

I am stunned at the media slant on this. The Daily Telegraph reported on this last week and the general angle of the report is it's the BBC's fault. I was astonished when the first reports of BBC executives receiving large amounts through limited companies were made a few years ago.

IR35 was introduced before the millennium and we were advising clients accordingly. It was created exactly for situations such as this and there is no reason why the BBC should not have paid Ms Ackroyd or anyone else by this method. If she had been advised properly and HMRC had been doing their job properly this situation may have been avoided or, at the very least, resolved much sooner. In other words IR35 has been around for a long time and no amount of self persuasion can avoid the fact that the tax was due and always was.

Thanks (1)
avatar
19th Feb 2018 11:25

I am sure a lot of corporation tax had been paid but the Revenue's and the government's greed is what is going to destroy the economy of this country. A bunch of idiots sitting behind a desk not realizing what it takes to earn a living! The fact the Revenue won this case makes me personally extremely sad!

Thanks (1)
avatar
to KIKISROSSIDES
04th Mar 2018 17:57

You talk through ye [***]. We all need to pay tax

Thanks (1)
avatar
By dstickl
19th Feb 2018 11:25

You might be interested to learn from public records that, E&OE, there are - or were - two shareholders, holding equal shareholdings, of …. CHRISTA ACKROYD MEDIA LIMITED,
 BROOK HOUSE,LANE HEAD LANE, 
OGDEN, 
HALIFAX ,
WEST YORKSHIRE 
HX2 8XN, 
Company No. 03711691, 
Status: Active, 
Date of Incorporation: 11/02/1999, 
described as: Company Type: Private Limited Company
, Nature of Business (SIC):
68209 - Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate … with names / occupations as follows on 11/02/2014 etc:
* 50 ORDINARY shares held by CHRISTA ACKROYD / JOURNALIST, and
* 50 ORDINARY shares held by CHRISTOPHER SUTCLIFFE / ACCOUNTANT.

Thanks (0)
avatar
19th Feb 2018 11:36

Why was the defendant CAM Ltd when it was the BBC who failed to deduct PAYE and NIC?
It's the BBC who should be paying the bill, and then trying to reclaim the money from CAM Ltd.
Then they would treat employment correctly, and send a message to other potential employers.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to johnacarpenter
20th Feb 2018 13:45

The period to which the disputed income related was prior to 6 April 2017 therefore it wasn't the BBC's responsibility to deduct PAYE and NIC. The failure was that of CAM Ltd and its directors.

The company and directors were or should have been aware of the IR35 rules, so regardless of whether one considers the judgement fair or not the directors should have known the risk was their's and not the BBC's

Thanks (2)
avatar
19th Feb 2018 14:41

Would it not be simpler for the self-employed, employed and those sole directors trading through a company be taxed exactly the same. Would stop all these shenanigans!
Dividend tax 20%, Ni 20% no employers NI or whatever it comes to.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By dstickl
to lordburnside
19th Feb 2018 17:15

What ? Another alleged tax loophole (of no employer's NIC) for - ahem - Starbucks, et cetera ?

Surely not ?

Thanks (0)

This is a case of undermining the principles surrounding the definition of whether one is Employed or Self Employed. For those who are working through a personal service company, make sure that the principles under the #BadgesofTrade is respected. This particular case undermined the #Jobcontrol principle and they are paying for it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NeilW
20th Feb 2018 19:56

IMV this case is precisely why the alterations currently in the public sector should apply to the private sector. The liability should rest with the hirer in all cases.

This could all have been fixed very easily if instead of IR35 the govt had introduced legislation that said no amount of intermediaries could prevent a contract of service arising between an individual and a hirer. The tax consequences then follow. The whole thing was due to the government pandering to large companies.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
to NeilW
21st Feb 2018 09:01

Could it be that ... The whole thing was due to the government pandering to large companies ... of lawyers ?

Surely not ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
04th Mar 2018 17:50

You all talk through ye [***].
The days of playing games with taxpayer status - self control or controlled - are over .
Many people work their testicles off under paye and all the bullshit and pretence needs to come to cessation.
For far too long some people have gotten away with murder.
If castration were a penalty everyone would surrender their true quantum of tax

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bella44
12th Apr 2018 08:15

The BBC has effectively proved, from recent "events" that it has little regard for; any employment, or equal rights legislation and, from what the commentary suggests above. Now we can watch tv channels like bbc and all on Ustvnow apk Why was that needed to be a point? This was to do with a person working with the BBC who fell under the IR35 rules. It's that simple.

Thanks (0)
avatar
06th Oct 2018 09:56

Does the BBC now have to account for Paye and NIC for the period of employment?
And does the individual now have employment rights such as holiday pay that can be claimed from the BBC?
Regards, ustv

Thanks (0)