Lorraine Kelly wins £1.2m tax case against HMRC over ITV work

[vwdan]

But the "moaning permies" may well have the last laugh. Enjoy your "earning more than them" whilst it lasts. It almost certainly won't after April 2020.

Mwahahahaha!

Oh, there's going to be a sudden flood of expertise into the country? My skills are suddenly no longer going to be required?

[NigelJK]

Is it just me but the fact that the Judge was also female had no bearing on the outcome?
Plenty of IT contractors have had solid 'Control' defences and been over turned.

[Ebenezer]

Good for her.

I'm actually god's gift to C++, I merely portray the part of a beerswilling layabout for the benefit of the client.

[quackhandle]

So, all artists, especially theatrical can now be classed as self-employed?

How many clients did she have, one - ITV?

Two. And JD Williams if I recall.

qh

[DaveB]

Two. And JD Williams if I recall.


qh

She also writes for assorted magazines and does fashion design work.

Accounting web had a good impartial write up of the case.

TV’s Lorraine Kelly has HMRC for breakfast | AccountingWEB

Of note is this section :

HMRC had a formal meeting with three ITV executives about the organisation’s relationship with Lorraine Kelly in July 2015, which included Ms Walton, the editor of Lorraine.

HMRC placed a great deal of importance on the answers given at this meeting, but the judge commented: “In relation to the evidence given by Ms Walton we accepted her evidence that the purpose of her meeting with HMRC in 2015 was not clearly explained to her and that although she had signed the notes of the meeting, she had not been responsible for the amendments made.” This should be a warning that interviews with HMRC should always be approached with caution, as the information collected may be used for a purpose which is not immediately obvious.

[LondonPM1]

No. That's not what the tribunal ruled *at all*. The tribunal ruled that she was an independent contractor because there was not sufficient mutuality of obligation or significant enough direction and control and that the picture as a whole was that she was effectively self employed (not in tax terms, but in terms of independence) and there was no employer/employee relationship.

The point regarding "theatrical artist" was in relation to a claim that her agent fees were not a tax deductible expense and the tribunal was asked to rule on this point regardless of the outcome of the IR35 verdict.

The tribunal decision was here: feel free to skip to the "Conclusions" section:
http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...09/TC07045.pdf

And no, ITV is not her only client. She has numerous other clients - she makes appearances on numerous TV programmes for different networks, writes columns for newspapers and magazines and also has commercial advertising deals - all different aspects of her business as a "TV personality".

I repeat - good for her. The people calling her a tax dodger should take a look at her accounts - her company pays over quarter of a million a year in corporation tax + other taxes (based on the last couple of years at least) and she no doubt pays a fair chunk of income tax each year on her dividends too.

Could she send in a substitute??

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Could she send in a substitute??

Yes, she had some form of right of substitution although ITV had the right to reject if unsuitable. It wasn't a key factor in the case.

[AtW]

Yes, she had some form of right of substitution although ITV had the right to reject if unsuitable. It wasn't a key factor in the case.

And maybe this will be key in inevitable appeal - even though i think they will just go for new higher band of corp tax for PSCs, and for good measure hike dividend tax again

[DaveB]

Could she send in a substitute??

From the AccountingWeb article

Right to provide a substitute

Although the programme was aired throughout the year, Kelly was only required to provide her services for 42 weeks per year and she was instrumental in identifying substitute presenters for the periods she was absent. ITV could determine whether or not to accept that substitute.

[AtW]

42 weeks per year, 4 weeks holidays - leaves 4 weeks for “substitutes”

If “substitues” were as good as her then why they were not hired?