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

Contractor wins IR35 appeal after five years

by
11th May 2010
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

An IT contractor scored a rare victory at the HMRC Commissioners in an appeal against the tax department’s interpretation of his service contract. Also see Inside Story: The Novasoft IR35 case

A tribunal decision published on Friday 7 May provides details of the decision in the Novasoft case brought by Novak Brajkovic against HMRC. Between August 1998 and December 2002, Brajkovic worked as a self-employed computer analyst/programmer with Avecia in a deal arranged through the agency Lorien.

Under the IR35 legislation introduced in April 2000, HMRC served formal notices on Novasoft in 2005 under the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 and formal decisions under section 8 of the Social Security (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 1999 based on its determination that Brajkovic was effectively a “disguised employee”.

Of particular note in this instance was that Novasoft used the HMRC’s IR35 assistance service to check whether the IR35 legislation applied its circumstances in January 2002.  HMRC officials undertook further enquiries - including interviewing managers at Avecia – that ultimately led to the assessments issued in 2005. 

HMRC’s stance was that “Brajkovic did not present an image of a businessman offering his services to the marketplace; rather, of someone comfortable working for the same client on terms equivalent to employment.” As the two sides could not agree, the case eventually ended up in front of the Commissioners.

Brajkovic gave no formal evidence at the hearing in December 2009, but acted as his own advocate.  Doing so denied HMRC’s representative the opportunity to cross-examine him formally, but the Commissioners accepted the arrangement was satisfactory. 

Most of the 20-page decision revolves around the legal principles defining the nature of Brajkovic’s contract, summarised by HMRC’s representatives as:

  • Extent and degree of control exercised by the client over the worker
  • The worker’s right to engage helpers or substitutes
  • Mutuality of obligations between the worker and the client
  • Financial risk of the worker
  • Provision of equipment
  • Basis of payment of the worker
  • Personal factors
  • The existence of employee rights
  • Termination of the contract
  • Whether the worker was part and parcel of the client’s organisation
  • Exclusive services
  • Mutual intention.

As the commissioners noted, this is not a mechanical checklist: all the factors need to be evaluated to paint an overall picture of the notional contract that would exist if Brajkovic was a direct employee. Brajkovic generally worked a five-day week on the client’s premises, using its equipment, but did not work to a set pattern laid down by Avecia and was responsible for his own training. He was not entitled to sick pay and paid an hourly rate that was different from Avecia employees.

In what the Commissioners highlighted as a “borderline case”, they found in Novasoft’s favour. There was no right of substitution in this case, but as with several other instances, the Commissioners concluded that this facet of the arrangement did “not disturb the overall impression we have formed of the notional contract”.

The Novasoft decision highlights the complexity of the IR35 regime for contractors, HMRC and the commissioners and judges who have to delve into the minutae of contractors’ working arrangements to make their decisions. As a side issue, representatives for Brajkovic at one point sought to clarify the contract terms with Avecia. The client company declined, according to the decision, because it felt suggested changes were factually incorrect and attempted to rewrite what was decided and the “threatening tone” adopted by the advisers.

Former tax inspector Kate Cottrell of Bauer & Cottrell who acts as an IR35 expert for Shout99 highlighted the way that Novasoft’s attempt to solicit HMRC’s advice on its contract in 2002 ended up at a Commissioners’ tribunal. The HMRC IR35 advice service is still open and explains that in order to form an opinion, it may talk to the contractor and the client and that the applicant must provide with all the necessary information. “If you do not agree with an opinion given by HMRC, and further discussion has failed to achieve agreement, you can request a formal decision against which you can appeal,” it adds.

Cottrell commented: “I wouldn’t advise anyone to go through the contract checking process unless they are prepared to get the decision they are not looking for and are prepared to go all the way to tribunal. HMRC said it would not use it as a targeting tool – maybe that was so in early days, when it was just about the contract - but it’s now all about the working practices.”

Inside Story: The Novasoft IR35 case

Replies (11)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By johnjenkins
12th May 2010 11:43

Not surprising

This decision doesn't surprise me.

The basic principal of self-employment is that the relation between business and worker changes. Once the commissioners are convinced of that fact then IR35 ceases to be.

Thanks (0)
7om
By Tom 7000
12th May 2010 11:50

Cameron Clegg

Can someone who knows one of these two chaps, just get them to abolish IR35 and save us all a headache. Let people decide what they want to be, ie a co or an employee, if HMRC dont like it then they can change the tax rates and abolish the small company rate say, simples. 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
12th May 2010 17:13

IR35

 IR35 is the most cumbersome tax to operate and often leaves people with a great deal of uncertainty and stress.

It is typical of the previous government (probably inspired by Europe) which until Alistair Darling delighted in bringing in legislation and taxation complexities without sufficient resources to monitor them.

At least Mr Darling simplified CGT with the 18% rate and, dare I say, the abolition of the 10% band.

A system is unsustainable when the professionals cannot understand the rules-let alone the taxpayer.

Please simplify our system-get rid of bureaucracy.  Coalition please engage in a demolition of red tape and the nanny state.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
13th May 2010 09:51

IR35 causes small companies to pay employers NIC when there are no benefits of employment eg sick pay. This is unfair and should be abolished. Why not restrict the tax credit on dividends to the amount of employees NIC paid by the shareholders in effect making them pay employees NIC in these businesses. There are other factors to consider as well but I need to get some work done........

Ivor Client

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By abelljms
13th May 2010 11:24

careless - i think so....

Surely the REAL error was M Assive Co (Novasoft) being dozy enough to employ self-employed contractors. They should be taking professional advice before entering into vague arrangements which leave them open to claims.

It was an open goal for HMRC, which they failed to hit due to their own inabilities. Mr. Brajkovic is very lucky to get away with it also.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ChickPea
13th May 2010 15:21

Careless?

Novasoft *is* the contractor's company- he's not self-employed in the tax sense, he's an employee of his own company.  He's self-employed in the layman's sense of the phrase, i.e. he's his own boss. 

Thanks (0)
7om
By Tom 7000
14th May 2010 13:45

careless 2

Hmm, yep I think you missed the point. Theres no self emplyed peoples involved in this or any CIS deductions for that matter, but thats another can of worms and who brought up CIS anyway

Thanks (0)
avatar
By fernley
16th May 2010 20:10

Huge Congratulations

Congrats to Novak Brajkovic - I know from personal experience that he must be one very relieved gentleman right now. I thought my case was long and stressful, but mine was nothing compared to his massive long period of uncertainty.

Lisa (Lime-IT)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By abelljms
17th May 2010 12:33

careless - i think so 2

well it's funny how this article in a supposedly professional environment is carelessly worded, and misleading -terms like "self-employed " are precise, and should only be used correctly? My own confusion arose as i have only just had my last self-employed IT contractor finally cave in and go limited, to his great disappointment. he had a contract with a massive operation who should have known better.

so in fact it's the company that fought the appeal not him? and it was the company facing the massive tax assessment not him? it makes a bit more sense now.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
17th May 2010 13:56

Financial Institutions

Trying telling the FI's that you are employed and work for your own Ltd Company. They treat you as a self-employed person, wanting salary, dividends and profit before taxation. Euroland treat the self-employed as a "worker" who can claim holiday pay and other PAYE benefits. etc. etc. etc.

Ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ChickPea
17th May 2010 19:14

"Who brought up CIS anyway?"

You did. :)

Thanks (0)