You might also be interested in
Replies (11)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
the most shocking thing about this he is paid £575 per programme. Have you ever listened to it !
I have dipped into their show now and then.Whats their hours 3 per show ? £200 an hour ?Compared to some BBC presenters probably reasonable value.Surprised Hawksbee got away with it.But there again some of these Judges hmm ?
With no Mutuality of obligation in the CEST tool - HMRC have a problem... I foresee that the CEST tool will be pulled out at a tribunal and thrown to the dogs.
So this is the nth IR35 tribunal that HMRC has lost in the last 12 months - MOO and financial risks being key factors in a lot of those cases... It's not looking good for the CEST rollout into the private sector next April...
But as HMRC listen to nobody apart from the Treasury, it's going to be the usual mess up for all...
Becoming a bit of a ritual, this: If HMRC keep losing cases when 'personalities' are involved and it is their persona that the public sees (Lorraine Kelly et al) where you might suppose - as HMRC clearly do - that the case would be a no brainer from their standpoint, why do they keep persisting?
Answer (1) because it's not their money they are wasting
(2)because they or their political masters are fixated with IR35 and desperate to apply it come what may
Still, one more case to throw back at them for any one else caught up in this nonsense.
What with this and MTD is anyone at HMRC doing anything else?
Don't answer that......
However HMRC try to word their IR35 it won't work. Why? Because it's concept is wrong. IR35 is artificial, one of Gordon Brown's fantasies.
Employment status is up to the work giver and the work doer and nothing to do with HMRC.
This is 100% correct - a civil servant designed 'solution' which is completely unworkable and impractical. This was borne out by the scenarios they once published which were more like a story book for children that what actual happens in the real world. The more they try to clarify the worse it gets.
You really do have to wonder who in HMRC is making the decision to repeatedly take these cases to tribunal. Someone should ask for a freedom of information act request and ask for IR35 tax yield figures ... they would be revealing I suggest.
totally agree @johnjenkins.
Ok so in order to watch BBC tv, I have to pay for a licence. That in effect is a contract between me, the viewer and BBC, the provider of those services. I cannot copy or broadcast that material to other viewers therefore a degree of control exists.
There is a mutual obligation that by purchasing a licence, the BBC has to let me watch BBC tv as a viewer. Therefore a contract exists through that licence so I must be a BBC employee and I would like paid holiday, pension please etc.
Mutual obligation is the whole point of drawing up a contract. Defining what you will give in return for a fee.
And parameters have to exist in context of the services delivered.
The employee is not a separate entity to the employer since an employment contract means the employee agrees to perform a role on behalf of and to the benefit of the employer and control is therefore assumed. Unlike in a contract situation where control is mutual and so two entities need to agree terms - ie what will be offered in return for what will be paid.
If HMRC had won this case, wouldn't every goods or service supplier to eg, M+S, sainsburys etc be treated as employment since there is mutual obligation in most contracts and control. There will be agreed elements (clauses) to determine the delivery (ie control of the product or service being produced).
In their continued desperation to twist IR35 into every contract situation, HMRC have again cost the taxpayer money in fighting an unsuccessful case. When will they abolish IR35 and accept that most situations operate legitimately under contracts and are not disguised employment. Yet again in trying to un-disguise a contract as employment they simply demonstrate that it was not disguised at all.
Good that the tax payer won the round regardless of the debate about the quality of broadcast/programme.