In the separate IR35 case of Kickabout Productions v HMRC[2022] EWCA Civ 502 (26 April 2022) the CA dismissed the appeal made by the personal service company (PSC) of Mr Paul Hawksbee against the UT’s decision that under the hypothetical contracts between Mr Hawksbee and Talksport Mr Hawksbee was an employee for IR35 purposes.
The UT had allowed HMRC’s appeal against the FTT’s decision that Mr Hawksbee a radio broadcaster was not an employee of Talksport for the purposes of the IR35 legislation contained at ITEPA 2003 ss 48–61. The UT had held that the FTT had erred in its findings on mutuality of obligation and in remaking the decision found that the individual was to be regarded as an employee under the hypothetical contracts for tax purposes.
Kickabout’s grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal were that the UT had:...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In the separate IR35 case of Kickabout Productions v HMRC[2022] EWCA Civ 502 (26 April 2022) the CA dismissed the appeal made by the personal service company (PSC) of Mr Paul Hawksbee against the UT’s decision that under the hypothetical contracts between Mr Hawksbee and Talksport Mr Hawksbee was an employee for IR35 purposes.
The UT had allowed HMRC’s appeal against the FTT’s decision that Mr Hawksbee a radio broadcaster was not an employee of Talksport for the purposes of the IR35 legislation contained at ITEPA 2003 ss 48–61. The UT had held that the FTT had erred in its findings on mutuality of obligation and in remaking the decision found that the individual was to be regarded as an employee under the hypothetical contracts for tax purposes.
Kickabout’s grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal were that the UT had:...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
