Tax  

Navigating the 'confusing' rules of IR35 legislation

  • Describe the latest state of play regarding IR35 rulings
  • Explain the differences between the Eamonn Holmes and Lorraine Kelly judgments
  • Identify the consequences of Holmes's possible appeal failing
CPD
Approx.30min

Therefore, if HMRC considers that there are elements that undermine the right of substitution, it will probably argue that the CEST determination is invalid.

What comes next?

There are several ways the government and HMRC could simplify the application of IR35. One option would be the implementation of a statutory employment status test, similar in function to the existing statutory residence test.

Article continues after advert

Although likely to be complicated and potentially encourage individuals to work the rules in their favour, it could remove some of the subjectivity and make it easier for HMRC to enforce the rules in a more uniform and predictable manner.  

In relation to existing case law, it is safe to assume that some cases will be taken further in the UK courts. For example, HMRC may well appeal Lineker’s case on the basis that, if left standing, the verdict would potentially create an IR35-shaped loophole for general partnerships.

Holmes might also look to appeal on the basis that the regulatory pressure of Ofcom does not constitute sufficient control in the hands of the end client (among other points).

However, if an appeal is unsuccessful and regulatory pressure is indeed seen as a right of control held by the end client, there may be some undesirable knock-on implications for other industries where third-party regulation pays a key role — for example, financial services.

In short, existing precedent is unlikely to be longstanding. Advisers, contractors, and businesses together should therefore ensure they stay abreast of any IR35 developments until the time comes when further reform takes place (or not).

Gideon Sanitt is a tax partner and Jack Filer is an employment tax specialist at Macfarlanes

CPD
Approx.30min

Please answer the six multiple choice questions below in order to bank your CPD. Multiple attempts are available until all questions are correctly answered.

  1. A contractor engaging through a personal service company is considered “within scope” will be subject to employment taxes, true or false?

  2. For the end client, the risk of incorrectly providing an “out-of-scope” determination is absent, true or false?

  3. Why did Lorraine Kelly escape penalty from HMRC?

  4. Eamonn Holmes lost his IR35 case because:

  5. HMRC considers that where an end client has a right to control, the engagement relationship is one of employment, true or false?

  6. What might be a consequence if Holmes appeals unsuccessfully?

Nearly There…

You have successfully answered all the questions correctly, well done!

You should now know…

  • Describe the latest state of play regarding IR35 rulings
  • Explain the differences between the Eamonn Holmes and Lorraine Kelly judgments
  • Identify the consequences of Holmes's possible appeal failing

I completed this CPD in

To bank your CPD please complete the form below.

Were the stated learning objectives met?

Why weren't they met?

What did you learn from undertaking this CPD exercise?

Why did you undertake this piece of learning?

Any comments about this article or FTAdviser's CPD in general?

Banked!

Congratulations, you have successfully completed and banked this piece of CPD

Already Banked!

You have already banked for this article.

To bank your CPD you must or

Register

One or more questions have been incorrectly answered,
 please review your answers and try again.

Please complete all the above text fields to bank your CPD.

More Regulation CPDSee my completed CPDSee all CPD