BBC presenters lose IR35 appeal

[JohntheBike]

HMRC defeats BBC presenters in IR35 tax tribunal

[BrilloPad]

Some good news though: -

HMRC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding carelessness, meaning it could only claim sums for arrangements going back four years, rather than six.

[JohntheBike]

Some good news though: -

HMRC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding carelessness, meaning it could only claim sums for arrangements going back four years, rather than six.

yes, to a certain extent.

the split decision was also interesting. This proves once again the fallacy that a client can accurately determine the employment status of an individual. If judges disagree, what chance has a client?

[PerfectStorm]

Wonder if they had QDOS and they will pay up?

[Hobosapien]

yes, to a certain extent.

the split decision was also interesting. This proves once again the fallacy that a client can accurately determine the employment status of an individual. If judges disagree, what chance has a client?

That's why the CEST tool needs to be fit for purpose and the result fit to stand up alone without any additional grey area.

Should be simple if the rules are so clear and logical that a tool can be used. Why they can't have CEST static in the content and therefore outcome shows HMRC need to tighten up their rule definitions so it's clear what is being asked when the client comes to use the tool.

If CEST was comprehensive enough and complete (no change to CEST unless there's a change to employment law) then everyone would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.

[CompoundOverload]

Wonder if they had QDOS and they will pay up?

I guess they will have to (not sure if they were the insurers for this case?). Just like when they sweep up all the premiums for cases they don't ever get claims on. This is only one a handful of cases that have been lost to HMRC. Again not sure how many of these QDOS were insurers of ?

[JohntheBike]

That's why the CEST tool needs to be fit for purpose and the result fit to stand up alone without any additional grey area.

Should be simple if the rules are so clear and logical that a tool can be used. Why they can't have CEST static in the content and therefore outcome shows HMRC need to tighten up their rule definitions so it's clear what is being asked when the client comes to use the tool.

If CEST was comprehensive enough and complete (no change to CEST unless there's a change to employment law) then everyone would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.

But it has been re-iterated many times by the judiciary that deciding employment status cannot be a box ticking exercise. All factors must be taken into account and appropriate weight attached to those factors. The overall picture must be considered. No computer based process is ever going to be able to do that, if only because judges will have their own personal, if not political, perspective of the issues. Remember that the "Commissioners for Taxes" have now had their name changed to the First Tier Tribunal. I wonder why?

The only way that this mess can be resolved is for employment status to be determined by one court and then the 1TT and the ET will decide the implications in relation to tax or benefits as appropriate. This will never happen in my opinion, unless one particular political party sees it as a vote winner at any one time.

[CompoundOverload]

Some good news though: -

HMRC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding carelessness, meaning it could only claim sums for arrangements going back four years, rather than six.

Does this mean that they (HMRC) will now go on a rampage against BBC presenters blanket style like they have done with GSK? Presumably, the presenters will likely yield a better ROI in light of this success?

They would appear to be a lot of court bookings in the not too distant future the way they are carrying on. How do they have the resources for all these investigations?

[sal]

I hope the presenters now go to BBC and recoup 6 years worth of annual leave and employee benefits.

[ShandyDrinker]

That's why the CEST tool needs to be fit for purpose and the result fit to stand up alone without any additional grey area.

Should be simple if the rules are so clear and logical that a tool can be used. Why they can't have CEST static in the content and therefore outcome shows HMRC need to tighten up their rule definitions so it's clear what is being asked when the client comes to use the tool.

If CEST was comprehensive enough and complete (no change to CEST unless there's a change to employment law) then everyone would know where they stood and could plan accordingly.

Completely agree with you.

However... the cynic in me (and I believe many others) says it is in the interests of HMRC and HMT to keep it just vague enough that they can cast their net as widely as possible to pull as many people into false deemed employment as they can. To tighten up rule definitions gives people a chance to find and exploit weaknesses.