IR35: Equipment

This is considered in many cases and can sometimes surprise you with the results. Going back to Hall v. Lorimer, it was the Client who either provided or hired the studio. The expensive video editing equipment was either hired or provided by the Client and sometimes the studio employees did ask for advice from Lorimer.

Often it is assumed that self-employed individuals provide both the large tools and small tools to undertake their work. The Revenue generally accept that individuals will provide small tools for the job but where the major tools are provided by the Client, then the Revenue will often challenge that the individual is really an employee. However, as we have seen in Hall v. Lorimer and Express and Echo Publications v. Tanton this was not the case. Lorimer (the vision mixer) did not provide either the main expensive video editing equipment or any other computer equipment. In the Tanton case, Express and Echo provided the vehicle to deliver the newspapers, provided Tanton's route and his uniform. Yet in both these cases, both individuals were accepted as self-employed.

The Revenue questionnaire asks specifically if equipment is provided and if so, who provides it. If equipment is provided, is it expensive specialist equipment? Who is responsible for the upkeep and repairs of equipment and if it is insured? All these questions will help to build an IR35 picture of the working practices of the Contractor.

Article kindly supplied by Ray McMahon


Editor's note: You may be interested in our IR35 calculator

Useful links: IR35 substitution  IR35 control  IR35 mutuality of obligation