Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
Eamonn Holmes
Wiki_commons_Garry_Knight_aw

IR35: Big loss for Eamonn Holmes

by

Eamonn Holmes is the tenth broadcaster to face a grilling under the IR35 rules, as chronicled in our IR35 casebook, and the fourth of those individuals to lose at the first tier tribunal (FTT).  

25th Feb 2020
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The case was heard in June 2018, but it has taken 20 months for the case report to be published. Why there has been such a long delay is quite a mystery. However, it does appear that all reference to the amount of income tax and NIC at stake has been stripped out of the case report, as has any mention of the level of fees paid for Holmes’ services.

Facts

The case concerned the application of IR35 to contracts between Holmes’ own personal service company 'Red, White and Green Ltd (RWG)' and ITV between 2011/12 to 2014/15.

Holmes has worked through RWG since April 2001, but during the years in question, he also used a different PSC: Holmes and Away Ltd.

Evidence

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:


Content lock down, tick icon

View all AccountingWEB content


Content lock down, tick icon

Comment on articles


Content lock down, tick icon

Watch our digital shows and more

Access content now

Already have an account?

Replies (19)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

paddle steamer
By DJKL
26th Feb 2020 09:47

Rebecca, thanks for the summary.

Just to mention you have a few typos, in particular under CONTROL you have "ware" not wear and "form" not from. Under MOO section there is a sentence that needs corrected, "This was clear evidence of that mutual obligation test was passed"

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
Head of woman
By Rebecca Cave
26th Feb 2020 11:17

I've corrected those points. I was rushing to get this article out, sorry!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Rebecca Cave:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
26th Feb 2020 11:29

Don't apologise, you are the one putting in the effort, I am a mere parasite consuming and not even paying.

Thanks (1)
By tonyaustin
26th Feb 2020 10:19

Under Comment, I would say it was fair compared to the new rules. Eamonn Holmes was paid gross so has received the money that is being taxed and has indeed paid tax on it to some extent as company profits and dividends, for which he will receive credit. I am sure that if ITV had known it would be liable for the secondary Class 1 NIC instead of EH, it would have reduced the amount it paid him accordingly.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
26th Feb 2020 17:29

The bigger mystery is why is there no link to the actual judgment? Here it is, courtesy of "linkman":

https://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/assets/docs/publications/RWG_v_HMRC_-...

https://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/resources/news/view/ir35-applies-to-e...

Looks like a correct decision to me. The quasi sham point is summarised at para 230 and control at para 247 et seq.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Head of woman
By Rebecca Cave
26th Feb 2020 15:07

Thanks for finding the case report. I have added in the link.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By youngloch
27th Feb 2020 11:08

I am constantly surprised why PSC's don't insist on paying their own expenses and just roll it in as part of the fee. Clearly HMRC recognise it as a factor as it is in the updated CEST tool and, based on test results I have seen, clearly can be a swaying factor. Had he paid his own transport costs to outside broadcasts, hotel/subsistence etc then, whilst it might have been a small point, it would have been a clear difference between how an employee would act. Submitting expense claims over and above a fee is, in my opinion, a bad idea for any PSC. If you want to be taxed like a business make sure you act like a business.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By kestrepo
27th Feb 2020 14:52

In time the raft of Celebrity IR35 cases will cease as the penalties are now firmly fixed at the fee payers level. In my view many of these presenters have been skirting the grey line of self employment for many years and have just now fallen over the edge into higher taxation brackets. While I empathise with many of the self employed in trades that will now be paid via PAYE it is hard for me to shed a tear for this vastly overpaid sector. I have never understood why in a supply and demand economy, where a large number of people would really like to be on TV (not me mind!) the payments to Celebrities are so huge. Adverts and Marketing I get but TV Presenting I don't!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By IANTO
28th Feb 2020 10:13

I'm intrigued as to why none of those broadcasters so judged have ever taken their case to the ET. It is quite clear from this "The FFT judge said the mutuality of obligation and the control issues together placed Holmes in the employment field rather than self-employment in his relationship with ITV" that an ET would have great difficulty in coming to a different conclusion." Thus the "disguised employer" would have to foot the tax bill and not Holmes.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By [email protected]
28th Feb 2020 10:35

I wonder if it is Eamonn's accountants advice got him into trouble?

A little forensic reading of the information filed at Companies House suggests he has recently changed his accountants.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
28th Feb 2020 10:56

As Boris has got rid of the shackles of the EU, perhaps he should turn to getting rid of the shackles that HMRC are placing around our wealth creators. Or we will end up with a stagnant economy caused not by any virus or Brexit, but by our own antiquated tax laws and HMRC's approach to employment status.

Thanks (3)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By 0705736
28th Feb 2020 12:39

I wouldn't describe Holmes as a wealth creator. Except for himself of course - I'm sure he's created a fair amount of wealth for himself. I think we should have a little more fairness in taxation, applying the rules equally to all, rather than continuing to let highly paid celebrities and others drive a coach and horses through the rules that apply to ordinary people. The tribunal found that he was essentially in the position of an employee (although disguised as something else) and therefore he should pay tax as an employee.

Thanks (2)
Replying to 0705736:
avatar
By johnjenkins
28th Feb 2020 12:58

Therein lies the problem. There is no such thing as "disguised employment". There is no definition of self-employed in Law. To actually take away Limited Company status and replace it with IR35 or any other such crap is against the will of the working majority and we all know what happens when you go against the will of the people. HMRC should not be allowed to get involved in the commercial decision of work giver and work doer. We can see what is happening from that involvement and it will eventually lead to economic stagnation. I'm sure Holmes has created wealth for ITV by being popular, therefore advertisers would want to advertise their products on the shows that they know he is on. Would you not call Leon Messi a wealth creator for Barcelona? Of course he is.
A happy worker is a productive worker.
Let us look at the case of the drivers of coaches and horses. In todays HMRC the driving of the coach (with their own limited company) for a company come under IR35, but the selling of manure to various farms etc. could be self-employment. Ludicrous

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By whitevanman
28th Feb 2020 13:24

I am not sure what evidence you have that anything here is "against the will of the working majority". I would suggest that all available evidence (only ever anecdotal) points in the opposite direction. Those who pay their taxes in full measure feel aggrieved when they read of so called celebrities paying rather less. I think most people would agree that, whatever your views of the law, everyone should pay what is legally due under the law and efforts to dress up arrangements as something other than what they are, are to be challenged.

Thanks (3)
Replying to whitevanman:
avatar
By johnjenkins
02nd Mar 2020 10:10

As far as paying full taxes what is legally due under the law, I whole heartedly agree. Any artificial scheme used by whoever should also be vigorously challenged. However the working practices (employment status) is commercial and nothing to do with HMRC. nor should it be. Unfortunately, due to HMRC needing to stop the small self-employed (started by Gordon Brown to pay for his inept handling of our finances) and get them onto PAYE, we have a situation where there is a state of massive confusion over our subcontractors. This will affect our economy in a big way. Costs of all major projects will soar (oh, they already have, haven't they?). The main reason why some on PAYE feel aggrieved is due to the freedom the self-employed appear to have. Let me enlighten those that feel aggrieved. Earning over £50k, being self-employed, is no extended holiday. It's f...… hard work.

Thanks (0)
Replying to 0705736:
avatar
By IANTO
28th Feb 2020 13:22

"therefore he should pay tax as an employee" and he should then receive paid holidays, sickness benefits and pension rights, just as any other employee would receive.

Thanks (0)
Replying to IANTO:
avatar
By 0705736
29th Feb 2020 23:22

Why not?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rmillaree
31st Mar 2023 14:05

"“It would be his deemed employer, in this case the broadcaster, that would be picking up a tax bill. But in this instance, because of the unfairness of the old IR35 rules, Holmes is now facing a tax bill for employment taxes that shouldn’t even be his responsibility. How is that fair?”

Huh - what unfairness here -????? everyone knew the risks involved here - whats unfair about one party taking responsibility compared to the other party. Surely he gambled that ir35 didnt apply and he lost - he MUST have known the risks - if he didnt he was pretty incompetent (or his advisors were)

he clearly had employee interactions well above levels that would be typical of self employment where one normally turns up and supplies specific specialist services without dealing with other bits and bobs. Seems to me that a basic employment status tool checker heer would probably say fail. and his gamble was very high risk however well the contract was drawn up.

Thanks (0)