ICAS

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
    2. ICAS Strategy 2030
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Career support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
    5. Learning redefined
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
    2. Digital practice conference 2023
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Business and governance
    5. Charities
    6. Coronavirus
    7. Corporate and financial reporting
    8. Cyber security
    9. Ethics
    10. Insolvency
    11. ICAS Research
    12. Pensions
    13. Practice
    14. Public sector
    15. Sustainability
    16. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD - Everything you need to know
    2. CPD courses and qualifications
    3. CPD news and updates
    4. CPD support and advice
    5. Career support
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

More IR35 chaos with opposing high-profile tax tribunal decisions

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
Justine Riccomini By Justine Riccomini, Head of Tax (Employment and Devolved Taxes)

17 April 2023

Main points

  • The tax tribunals have handed down two high-profile IR35 decisions, with completely different results.
  • Both were in respect of well-known TV presenters, Gary Lineker and Eamonn Holmes.
  • The decisions differed only because one was based on a partnership-related technicality and the other focused on the master-servant relationship.

Justine Riccomini sets out the decisions in the two latest high-profile IR 35 tax cases, Lineker and Holmes, and explains why the outcomes were so different.

Two cases recently hit the headlines again after hearings at the First and Upper Tier Tax Tribunals. It is not surprising at all that different outcomes were reached, but what was surprising was the reasoning for those decisions being different. These two cases do little to assist those in need of clarity on the off-payroll working spectrum, and nothing to assuage the fears of those giving tax advice in this area. The legislation is clearly unsustainable in its current format and the whole area of employment status becomes more complicated every time a decision is released.

Gary Lineker Media

Gary Lineker formed a partnership with his now ex-wife Danielle Bux, which traded as Gary Lineker Media. The partnership supplied Mr Lineker’s services to BBC and BT Sport. The so-called “IR35” legislation at Ch.8 part 2 ITEPA 2003 is not restricted to corporate entities, it also applies to partnerships, but the interesting thing about this case is that it actually hinged on the partnership aspect of the case rather than on the traditional hypothetical contract aspects where the finer detail of a classic ‘employed v self-employed’ tax status argument is being played out.

Assessments

HMRC had raised assessments amounting to just short of £5 million in income tax and NICs under the IR35 provisions, which was deemed to be due because HMRC considered Mr Lineker’s relationship with the two parties contracting with Gary Lineker Media to be one of subservience.

Preliminary arguments

The preliminary tribunal case was originally held back on the basis of the submissions by Mr Lineker’s lawyers that a decision ought to be made about whether IR35 even applied to this case, because of the way in which the contracts were signed. Was there a direct contract with the individual, in which case IR35 did not apply because there was no intermediary through which the services had been provided? Or was there a general partnership which acted as an intermediary?

The judge decided that before any full hearing could proceed and lengthy employment status arguments could be heard, this hearing would concern itself with whether an intermediary was in fact providing Mr Lineker’s services. The case would not progress if no intermediary was deemed to sit between Mr Lineker and the TV companies. This involved the examination of the basic tenet of IR35 at Section 49(1)(b) Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

Decision

The decision did not play out in the way HMRC expected, however. The contracts between Gary Lineker Media and the TV companies were signed by both partners in the partnership, which led the judge to conclude that because Mr Lineker had personally signed a contract with the TV companies, he was essentially representing himself as well as the partnership. Had only Ms Bux signed the documents, the partnership would have been representing Mr Lineker as an intermediary service provider.

The judge stated: “It must therefore follow that, as a matter of law, when Mr Lineker signed the 2013 BBC Contract, the 2015 BBC Contract and the BT Sport contract for the provision of his services, he did so as principal thereby contracting directly with the BBC and BT Sport. As such, the intermediaries’ legislation cannot apply - it is only applicable where services are provided not under a contract directly between client and the worker. In this case Mr Lineker’s services were provided under direct contracts with the BBC and BT Sport.” Moving away from football terminology but sticking with a sporting theme, the judge concluded that a “knock out blow” had been delivered to HMRC’s arguments, and found in favour of Mr Lineker.

We will see whether HMRC chooses to contest the decision or bring a new employment status case altogether based on whether Mr Lineker was an employee of the TV companies or self-employed. In the meantime, it may be the case that the partnerships aspect of Chapter 8 will be amended to avoid follow-on cases arising on the same basis, but as the case is not binding HMRC can in any case continue to mount similar challenges.

Red, White and Green Ltd

In sharp contrast to Lineker, it seems Eamonn Holmes once again failed to convince the courts (this time the Upper Tribunal) that they should not go back to basics and examine the contractual relationship and employment status principles of supervision, direction and control.

Arguments

The Upper Tribunal found that the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) had not erred in law when considering the control and the Mutuality of Obligation (MOO) tests which arise from Ready Mixed Concrete are still valid today.

Control is everything

Unfortunately for Mr Holmes, the Upper Tribunal decided that the FTT had come to the right conclusions, albeit they had not been set out in a particularly clear and unambiguous way. The original FTT conclusion had been that Mr Holmes was clearly working under the supervision, direction and control of the TV company and was not free to make his own decisions about the majority of aspects of his role, despite his insisting the contrary.

Therefore, the £250,000 liability Mr Holmes was aiming to quash still stands.

If you wish to contribute to the debate…why not join an ICAS tax committee and bring your expertise straight to the Tax team?

Spring Budget: Employment taxes

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Tax (Employment and Devolved Taxes)

31 March 2023

Justine Riccomini explains the importance of recent joint letter to Chancellor asking for more investment in HMRC

By Justine Riccomini, Head of Tax (Employment and Devolved Taxes)

3 March 2023

2023-05-xero 2023-05-xero

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: