Our website uses cookies to store information on your computer. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work as a result. Find out more about how we use cookies.
(Accept cookies and do not show this message again)
Shout99 - News matters for freelancers
Search Shout99 - News matters for freelancers
(Advanced Search)
   Join Shout99  About Shout99   Sitemap   Contact Shout99 26th Oct 2021
Forgot your password?
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
New Users Click Here
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
Front Page
News...
Freelancers' Shop...
Ask an Expert...
Letters
Direct Contracts
Press Links
Question Time
The Clubhouse
Conference Hall...
News from Partners
Accountants

Login
Sitemap

Business Links

Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660

Freelancers' Shop

Personal Financial Services
from ContractorFinancials

Mortgages

Pensions

ISAs

Income protection

... and more special offers for Shout99 readers in the Freelancers' Shop

Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660
  
Shout99 - Freelancers, FO35, Section 660

News for the
Construction Industry

Hardhatter.com - News for small businesses in the construction industry

Powered by
Powered by Novacaster
Advertisement
Cogent

IT contractor loses £70,000 IR35 appeal
by Susie Hughes at 11:57 18/06/21 (News on IR35)
An IT contractor who received an IR35-related £70,000 tax bill by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has had his second appeal dismissed by a tribunal judge for a second time.
Project manager Robert Lee received a £70,000 tax demand in relation to a number of 'outside IR35' contracts he completed for Nationwide Building Society between 2012 and 2015, delivered through his limited company Northern Light Solutions.

HMRC argued that the manner in which Mr Lee operated for Nationwide meant his engagements should have been classified as 'inside IR35', and deemed her therefore should have been taxed as a 'disguised employee'.

Mr Lee unsuccessfully challenged HMRC on the matter through a First-Tier Tribunal in February 2020 and subsequently launched a second appeal at the Upper Tribunal hearing in May 2021, which has also failed.

The court notes suggest that the contract was neither clearly inside or outside IR35, but that the contractor failed ‘key IR35 status tests’ - control; substition and mutuality of obligation.

Status tests
The Tribunal agreed with HMRC on various points, including the high level of control which Nationwide exercised, including the hours and the place where Mr Lee worked.

Advertisement
They found against Mr Lee on the grounds that they disputed the claim that the contractors had a genuine right of substitution. Even though the contact contained a right of substitution, this was never exercised and it was felt that it would not have happened in reality.

The Upper Tribunal agreed with the First Tier Tribunal’s view that mutuality of obligation existed in the working relationship for the duration of the contracts, but recognised that there was no obligation for Nationwide to provide work beyond the length of each contract. Nevertheless, the Tribunal felt that this consistent with that of employment.

The Tribunal judge described Mr Lee as being ‘part and parcel’ of Nationwide’s organisation and that the arrangement was one of 'employment' for tax purposes.

It is not known yet if Mr Lee will escalate the case further through the Court of Appeal.

Further IR35 information
For more information about all aspects of IR35, including the controversial IR35 reforms see Shout99's News on IR35 section.


--
If you wish to comment on this article, please log in and use the Reply button below. Registering is free and easy - see 'Join Shout99'.
-
Susie Hughes © Shout99 2021

Printer Version

Mail this to a friend

Copyright 1999-2018, Shout99.com | All Rights Reserved
Privacy Notice and Terms of Use
 

Advertisements
advert
advert
advert
advert