Originally posted by billybiro
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Lorraine Kelly wins £1.2m tax case against HMRC over ITV work
Collapse
X
-
-
Is it just me but the fact that the Judge was also female had no bearing on the outcome?
Plenty of IT contractors have had solid 'Control' defences and been over turned.Comment
-
Good for her.
I'm actually god's gift to C++, I merely portray the part of a beerswilling layabout for the benefit of the client.Comment
-
Originally posted by AtW View PostSo, all artists, especially theatrical can now be classed as self-employed?
How many clients did she have, one - ITV?
qhHe had a negative bluety on a quackhandle and was quadraspazzed on a lifeglug.
I look forward to your all knowing and likely sarcastic and unhelpful reply.
Comment
-
Originally posted by quackhandle View PostTwo. And JD Williams if I recall.
qh
Accounting web had a good impartial write up of the case.
TV’s Lorraine Kelly has HMRC for breakfast | AccountingWEB
Of note is this section :
HMRC had a formal meeting with three ITV executives about the organisation’s relationship with Lorraine Kelly in July 2015, which included Ms Walton, the editor of Lorraine.
HMRC placed a great deal of importance on the answers given at this meeting, but the judge commented: “In relation to the evidence given by Ms Walton we accepted her evidence that the purpose of her meeting with HMRC in 2015 was not clearly explained to her and that although she had signed the notes of the meeting, she had not been responsible for the amendments made.” This should be a warning that interviews with HMRC should always be approached with caution, as the information collected may be used for a purpose which is not immediately obvious."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostNo. That's not what the tribunal ruled *at all*. The tribunal ruled that she was an independent contractor because there was not sufficient mutuality of obligation or significant enough direction and control and that the picture as a whole was that she was effectively self employed (not in tax terms, but in terms of independence) and there was no employer/employee relationship.
The point regarding "theatrical artist" was in relation to a claim that her agent fees were not a tax deductible expense and the tribunal was asked to rule on this point regardless of the outcome of the IR35 verdict.
The tribunal decision was here: feel free to skip to the "Conclusions" section:
http://financeandtax.decisions.tribu...09/TC07045.pdf
And no, ITV is not her only client. She has numerous other clients - she makes appearances on numerous TV programmes for different networks, writes columns for newspapers and magazines and also has commercial advertising deals - all different aspects of her business as a "TV personality".
I repeat - good for her. The people calling her a tax dodger should take a look at her accounts - her company pays over quarter of a million a year in corporation tax + other taxes (based on the last couple of years at least) and she no doubt pays a fair chunk of income tax each year on her dividends too.Comment
-
Originally posted by 1 Jack Kada View PostCould she send in a substitute??Comment
-
Originally posted by TheCyclingProgrammer View PostYes, she had some form of right of substitution although ITV had the right to reject if unsuitable. It wasn't a key factor in the case.Comment
-
Originally posted by 1 Jack Kada View PostCould she send in a substitute??
Right to provide a substitute
Although the programme was aired throughout the year, Kelly was only required to provide her services for 42 weeks per year and she was instrumental in identifying substitute presenters for the periods she was absent. ITV could determine whether or not to accept that substitute."Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.Comment
-
42 weeks per year, 4 weeks holidays - leaves 4 weeks for “substitutes”
If “substitues” were as good as her then why they were not hired?Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Spot the hidden contractor Dec 20 10:43
- Accounting for Contractors Dec 19 15:30
- Chartered Accountants with MarchMutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants with March Mutual Dec 19 15:05
- Chartered Accountants Dec 19 15:05
- Unfairly barred from contracting? Petrofac just paid the price Dec 19 09:43
- An IR35 case law look back: contractor must-knows for 2025-26 Dec 18 09:30
- A contractor’s Autumn Budget financial review Dec 17 10:59
- Why limited company working could be back in vogue in 2025 Dec 16 09:45
- Expert Accounting for Contractors: Trusted by thousands Dec 12 14:47
Comment