In K5K Ltd v HMRC the First-tier Tribunal has confirmed the wide scope of the deeming provision in the agency rules contained in Chapter 7 of ITEPA 2003 Part 2. In a decision which also provides a practical example of how important it is for taxpayers to retain relevant and accurate evidence to support their case the FTT rejected the taxpayer’s argument that ITEPA 2003 s 44 was directed at situations where a worker is contractually obliged to provide personal service to an end client as opposed to instances where personal services were in fact provided. This decision is of relevance not only to staffing suppliers such as recruitment agencies but also to other contingent worker suppliers involved in the supply of workers on a self-employed basis such as construction industry scheme payment intermediaries gig worker platforms suppliers of staff augmentation services and anyone who...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
In K5K Ltd v HMRC the First-tier Tribunal has confirmed the wide scope of the deeming provision in the agency rules contained in Chapter 7 of ITEPA 2003 Part 2. In a decision which also provides a practical example of how important it is for taxpayers to retain relevant and accurate evidence to support their case the FTT rejected the taxpayer’s argument that ITEPA 2003 s 44 was directed at situations where a worker is contractually obliged to provide personal service to an end client as opposed to instances where personal services were in fact provided. This decision is of relevance not only to staffing suppliers such as recruitment agencies but also to other contingent worker suppliers involved in the supply of workers on a self-employed basis such as construction industry scheme payment intermediaries gig worker platforms suppliers of staff augmentation services and anyone who...
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
