Another defeat for HMRC - £140k TalkSPORT host (Update: they won in the end)

[PTP]

TalkSPORT host Paul Hawksbee avoids GBP140,000 tax bill | Daily Mail Online

[Lance]

It's funny that HMRC keep cocking these up.

It's not so funny when you realise that as public opinion DOES see these people as enmployees, there will be changes made to legislation to make them pay. And that will impact us.

The case that he makes his own jokes so he's self-employed is pretty damn thin IMO.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

The case that he makes his own jokes so he's self-employed is pretty damn thin IMO.

You should know better than to fall for the sloppy reporting around these cases, which always focus on the most absurd sounding arguments (the same thing happened with the Lorraine Kelly case and the focus on her "playing a character" - which wasn't even *relevant* to the IR35 part of the case).

[Lance]

You should know better than to fall for the sloppy reporting around these cases, which always focus on the most absurd sounding arguments (the same thing happened with the Lorraine Kelly case and the focus on her "playing a character" - which wasn't even *relevant* to the IR35 part of the case).

I should. I feel suitably chastised.

[filthy1980]

if they deemed he was an employee why did they limit the investigation to just a 3 year period against just one of his Ltd companies.

he's been on TS since the late 90's why not go back as far as they could and do him for the maximum amount possible?

[JohntheBike]

if they deemed he was an employee why did they limit the investigation to just a 3 year period against just one of his Ltd companies.

he's been on TS since the late 90's why not go back as far as they could and do him for the maximum amount possible?

could it be that they were worried that he'd make a claim in the ET for employment benefits? He would still have been engaged with the same client, even though the investigation was for a previous period. Well, perhaps not. But this scenario might very well become more prevalent in the future for contractors who have been with their clients for some time.

[northernladuk]

could it be that they were worried that he'd make a claim in the ET for employment benefits?

Based on what evidence? I'd very much doubt they've considered that. Their job is to collect the tax they think they are owed. Period. Common sense and mitigating circumstances don't seem to factor to them.

[BlasterBates]

This

You can only go to the Employment Appeals Tribunal within three months of the end of your contract to demand employee rights but HMRC can wait six years to claim that you are actually within IR35

[JohntheBike]

yes, we know this, but there is provision to appeal this given a valid reason.

[JohntheBike]

Based on what evidence? I'd very much doubt they've considered that. Their job is to collect the tax they think they are owed. Period. Common sense and mitigating circumstances don't seem to factor to them.

well, as the poster asked, why would HMRC only challenge him for a selected period from his history of engagements and that outside the period for lodging an ET claim? If they had challenged him on his current period, then clearly that might have opened up the possibility that he would have claimed employment benefits.

The message I will continually post is that HMG oppression can only be countered in the courts, no amount of debate or lobbying will change the oppression. Using the ET, which is outside the influence of HMRC, unless they are the client, is a very good way in my opinion of attacking IR35.

The Matthew Taylor report recommended that tax and employment status determinations should be standardised, but HMG rejected this. So this can only be achieved by using the courts to establish this principle.