News

HMRC “kicks back” in latest IR35 case

Avatar
Last updated October 1, 2020

HMRC “kicks back” at Upper Tribunal in latest win against Paul Hawksbee

In July 2019 we saw the fight between HMRC and the talkshow and radio host Paul Hawksbee of Kickabout Productions Limited (“KPL”) as to whether IR35 applied for the tax years 2012-13 to 2014-15. KPL had entered into arrangements with Talksport to provide Mr Hawksbee as a presenter on Talksport Radio’s “Hawksbee & Jacobs Show” more commonly known as “The Show”. The Show required a very specific slot of every weekday from 1pm-4pm.

During the Hearing at the FTT, there were disagreements between Judge Thomas Scott and Tribunal Panel Member, Mr Baker. These disagreements, due to the fact Mr Baker did not agree that mutuality was not present, made the case more unusual than most.

The FTT decision held that the contractual relationship between KPL and Talksport was not one of employment and the “irreducible minimum” as set out by Mackenna J of Ready Mixed Concrete was not met. This was a huge win for KPL, considering HMRC’s track record with TV industry cases.

HMRC subsequently appealed to the Upper Tribunal and won their case. So what went wrong?

The Upper Tribunal Decision

This was a case HMRC was never going to let go of: in their opinion the factual background steered towards employment. HMRC’s appeal focused largely on Mutuality of Obligations and they submitted that the FTT had erred in law in making their decision. The reasoning they gave was “The FFT reached a perverse conclusion in finding that under the actual contracts between KPL and Talksport, Talksport had no obligation to provide any work to KPL”.

Mutuality of Obligation

HMRC’s argument was that the two different contracts which existed were not properly considered at the FTT. Contract One was a letter of engagement that required KPL to provide services on an exclusive basis; the contract stated “You will be required to work for a minimum of 222 days per year” (this was not entirely helped by the fact KPL provided services only to Talksport).

The notice period for termination of the contract was four months, which is much lengthier then we would expect of a contractor – a point that was argued made “little sense” if it were factually correct that KPL could simply stop providing services to Talksport.

Contract Two was considered a little differently. Here the contract was more of a framework agreement in respect of projects. Again, however, there was a 222 day working requirement that replicated that of Contract One.

The UT concluded that such provisions demonstrated an obligation on Talksport to provide work and an obligation on KPL to undertake work which was sufficient to satisfy mutuality of obligation.

Control

While it was not the main argument, control was still considered in detail. Here, rather than focusing on the specific written provisions of each contract they looked at the overall method of working by drawing up the hypothetical contract that would exist between Mr Hawksbee and Talksport when all contracts and working practices were taken into account.

It was stated at the FFT that the hypothetical contracts gave Talksport the right of control over “where and when” the services were to be provided. They also considered that KPL had a “high degree of editorial control” over the services; such as choosing who was interviewed and the event/stories that came up. It was concluded that “under both hypothetical contracts, Talksport had relatively narrow rights of control over what tasks Mr Hawksbee performed”.

At the UT HMRC pushed back on this conclusion also, stating that “Talksport had the right of “first call” or “reasonable call” respectively on Mr Hawksbee’s services in connection with the Show which they said was a much broader requirement than to prepare and present episodes of the Show”.

Whilst the UT considered the original arguments put forward in the FTT. They concluded, as per HMRC’s contention, that a “framework of control” existed, sufficient to make Hawksbee an employee.

Other Factors

Strangely, in-business factors caused somewhat of a stir, as the FTT concluded that because KPL was provided with a “fixed fee” this meant Hawksbee was then bearing a financial risk.

This was disregarded by the UT, along with the “Part and Parcel” test, and they decided that the arguments “adds little to this case”.

Conclusion

It is difficult not to have some sympathy for Mr Hawksbee after his victory at the FTT. On close examination of the UT judgement, however, the defence was not without its weaknesses.

In respect of mutuality of obligations, the fact that KPL only provided services to Talksport was considered significant and a defence to HMRC’s argument was undoubtedly made more difficult by the requirement to provide services for 222 days (as this would have made it extremely difficult to provide services anywhere else).

Such provision, while commercially sensible, can have drastic consequences for IR35. This case demonstrates why we consider mutuality the hardest issue to defend in the event of an enquiry and if a defence is to be argued we need strong evidence.

In respect of control, perhaps a stronger defence could have been made in respect of “how” the services are provided. There was strong evidence that the manner in which the services were provided was determined by KPL because, without Mr Hawksbee, there was no show. It seems clear that he was engaged for his knowledge, expertise and comical nature.

It seems a little at odds with other cases that control was judged so rigidly. TV personality Lorraine Kelly presented similar facts to this case; she too had to provide her services at a certain time for the live show every week day morning and, as with Mr Hawksbee, decided who to interview and what subjects were discussed.

The stark difference between the two cases was that Lorraine Kelly’s defence mounted a “brand” argument which emphasised the lack of control, with hindsight perhaps this “brand” argument could have helped in Mr Hawksbee’s case. We will eagerly wait to see if KPL appeals this decision.

If you would like any further information about this case or if you have a current IR35 enquiry you would like assistance with then please contact Paul Mason on 0345 066 0035 or 01788 702772 or email us at IR35@markel.com

 


Kaye Adams wins case and is ruled outside IR35 due to being ‘in business on own account’

IR35 news: Eamonn Holmes loses his IR35 case against HMRC 

 


Author Paul Mason, Head of Tax Partnerships at Markel Tax


Avatar
Last updated October 1, 2020

Related IR35 content

HM Courts & Tribunal Service becomes the third government department to be hit with IR35 tax bill

Government departments have been in the news recently for their incorrect assessments of the employment status of their contractors in…

Read more

Home Office hit with huge IR35 tax bill

It has recently emerged that the Home Office has been hit with a £33.5 million IR35 tax bill after a…

Read more

DWP hit with huge tax bill for historic IR35 contractor status assessment errors

It has emerged that the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) was hit with a huge £87.9 million tax bill…

Read more

IR35 private sector changes to go ahead next week

Changes to IR35 in the private sector will go ahead on 6th April 2021, despite hopes for a further delay….

Read more

Kaye Adams wins case and is ruled outside IR35 due to being ‘in business on own account’

In a landmark IR35 case that will be welcomed by PSCs, but will not be widely applied, television presenter Kaye…

Read more

UK Supreme Court rules that Uber drivers are workers not self-employed

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision should come as no surprise given that Uber’s appeal follows an Employment Tribunal ruling against…

Read more

Private sector IR35 soon to be reality

On April 6th 2021, the contractor’s worst scenario will become reality… IR35 in the private sector will finally go live….

Read more

Just 2 months left until the IR35 reform: what do contractors need to know?

On the 6th April 2021, the IR35 private sector changes will come into effect. With this date now just a…

Read more

The blanket approach to IR35

The delay in the introduction of the IR35 legislation allowed contractors and their clients extra time to prepare. It also…

Read more

IR35 news: Eamonn Holmes loses his IR35 case against HMRC

Holmes, a broadcaster for over 40 years, was providing his services through a limited company called Red, White and Green…

Read more

HMRC “kicks back” in latest IR35 case

HMRC “kicks back” at Upper Tribunal in latest win against Paul Hawksbee In July 2019 we saw the fight between…

Read more

Off-payroll working in the private sector

Despite the protests and lobbying of the Government, the only reference in the Budget notes makes it very clear that…

Read more

The impact of finance sector IR35 decisions on contractors

IR35 reform to the private sector was already having a negative impact on contractors working in the finance sector prior…

Read more

Lord’s committee expresses concerns over IR35

IR35 off-payroll reform was due to be rolled-out to the private sector on April 6th of this year, but due…

Read more

Suggestions to move IR35 reforms to 2023 are rejected

Amendments to the IR35 private sector are set to go ahead from April 2021, despite suggestions from a Conservative MP…

Read more

COVID-19 and IR35: Should your clients relax now the legislation is postponed?

Steve Barclay, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced that due to the effects of Covid-19 (Coronavirus), the changes to…

Read more

11th hour delay for IR35 private sector reform due to COVID-19 welcomed

The Government has delayed its controversial IR35 private sector reform by one year, until April 2021, because of the COVID-19…

Read more

No delay to IR35 rollout as the Government launches off-payroll review

The Government launched its off-payroll review on January 7th with regards to the implementation of the changes to the off-payroll…

Read more

What are the political parties saying about IR35?

In April 2020 the contractor and freelance community are set to be hit by changes to IR35 legislation which could…

Read more

Six reasons for PSCs to be proactive to respond to the IR35 private sector changes and not wait until April 2020 to do so!

Since April 2000, the Intermediaries legislation has made the individual contractor trading through his/her own Personal Service Company (PSC) the…

Read more

What impact will IR35 reforms have on North Sea operators?

With high levels of talent engaged through off payroll structures in the energy sector, the North Sea operators will feel…

Read more

Are you ready for IR35 changes?

Proposed changes to IR35 legislation could mean thousands of contractors may pay more tax. With the Government’s consultation on contracting…

Read more

IR35 and CEST Update

The IR35 story continues to rumble on taking twists and turns along the way and most of us believe it…

Read more

U-Turn on Self-employed NIC but no change to Public Sector rules on IR35

The ink has yet to dry on Philip Hammond’s first budget as Chancellor but his proposed national insurance increases for…

Read more
Tags

IR35 Products & services

Caunce O’Hara’s partnership with Markel enables us to offer a broad range of IR35-based products to protect contractors, fee-payers and end clients across the UK.

IR35 Hub Related IR35 content