Linekar wins the tax appeal

[backsidebaggie]

That’s made a lot of very loud empty right leaning vessels very angry indeed!

HMRC are quite angry with the decision to be fair, and their staff are predominantly Labour voters.

They may appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tax is not a black and white area.

[hudds]

That’s made a lot of very loud empty right leaning vessels very angry indeed!

HMRC are quite angry with the decision to be fair, and their staff are predominantly Labour voters.

They may appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tax is not a black and white area.

They could indeed.  The law looks clear enough though.  Has there been an error in law by the FTT?  I suppose an appeal would be granted by tthe FTT judge anyway given its profile.

Point is that morally Linekar is the PR winner.

[backsidebaggie]

That’s made a lot of very loud empty right leaning vessels very angry indeed!

HMRC are quite angry with the decision to be fair, and their staff are predominantly Labour voters.

They may appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tax is not a black and white area.

They could indeed.  The law looks clear enough though.  Has there been an error in law by the FTT?  I suppose an appeal would be granted by tthe FTT judge anyway given its profile.

Point is that morally Linekar is the PR winner.

Not always about an error in law I don’t think. I think hmrc argued he was a ‘disguised employee’. And many subjective pieces of evidence are looked at in deciding that, before a decision is found on the balance of probabilities by the tribunal. Even contracts can be found to not be the ‘economic reality’ of a relationship.

And of course hmrc are always up against the fact rich companies (or in this case individuals) can afford KC’s to defend them. Hmrc can’t. It’s not black and white, as most tax cases aren’t.

[Kit Kat Chunky]

If it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, then it is probably an employee trying to hide behind IR35 or a tax scheme.

I dispise people that use them. In my experience it's usually people that can afford to pay fair tax. Most people don't have that choice, due to PAYE.

[backsidebaggie]

If it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, then it is probably an employee trying to hide behind IR35 or a tax scheme.

I dispise people that use them. In my experience it's usually people that can afford to pay fair tax. Most people don't have that choice, due to PAYE.

Indeed.

No different to Starbucks et al who find “legal” loopholes to avoid paying tax. That’s exactly why they’re loopholes.

And today, we have some folk celebrating that Lineker wins this case. Incredibly, on the left side of politics. I despair, but it just shows how naive some people are. Or perhaps not naive, just desperate to get one over the “other side”, and in this case Labour supporters on social media cheering on a millionaire finding tax loopholes. Christ. Literally the rich being able to find loopholes (yes he’s won legally, that’s exactly why it’s a loophole!), and in this case PR their way to looking like the good guys. Which most of us plebs can’t do, as we’re not in the position to find the loophole, nor employ a top lawyer to defend ourselves.

Well done Lineker, you’re as morally upstanding as Starbucks and Amazon (who also pay the “right” amount of tax legally). FFS.

[SussexBaggie]

The FTT has released it decision in Gary Lineker and Danielle Bux T/A Gary Lineker Media v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 101 (TC), the first case to consider the applicability of IR35 to a general partnership.

Rejecting the taxpayer’s arguments that (1) the legislation did not apply to general partnerships as a matter of principle (para 70) and (2) there was no partnership as a matter of law (para 83), the FTT (Judge Brooks) nonetheless found that the services were provided under contracts directly between Mr Lineker and the BBC / BT Sport as he signed each contract as principal in respect of his own services (paras 91-94). As such, s.49 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 did not apply and the appeal was allowed.

Many thanks Hudds - I’ve a big big IR35 case on and due in front of the Tribunal in May - another sporting name. This one looks like a welcome bloody nose to HMRC imho.

[hudds]

That’s made a lot of very loud empty right leaning vessels very angry indeed!

HMRC are quite angry with the decision to be fair, and their staff are predominantly Labour voters.

They may appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tax is not a black and white area.

They could indeed.  The law looks clear enough though.  Has there been an error in law by the FTT?  I suppose an appeal would be granted by tthe FTT judge anyway given its profile.

Point is that morally Linekar is the PR winner.

Not always about an error in law I don’t think. I think hmrc argued he was a ‘disguised employee’. And many subjective pieces of evidence are looked at in deciding that, before a decision is found on the balance of probabilities by the tribunal. Even contracts can be found to not be the ‘economic reality’ of a relationship.

And of course hmrc are always up against the fact rich companies (or in this case individuals) can afford KC’s to defend them. Hmrc can’t. It’s not black and white, as most tax cases aren’t.

The primary reason a judge would allow an appeal would be an error of law.  That would be presented "in the best light" by the person seeking an appeal and would have to persuade the judge who is being asked about their own decision.  But it's allowed as well I think if it has sort of broader appeal (no pun intended).  I have never been sure about the limitations.

HMRC used a KC and two juniors in the Linekar FTT case.  HMRC has deep enough pockets funded by the taxpayer for senior barristers at UTC and higher courts.  I meant to ask whether there is a reduced rate for Crown work as there are for juniors on the AG's panel.

It's a pisser when a smaller business has no funds for a barrister but the Crown can engage a brief and for a much reduced rate from the commercial rate.

[backsidebaggie]

That’s made a lot of very loud empty right leaning vessels very angry indeed!

HMRC are quite angry with the decision to be fair, and their staff are predominantly Labour voters.

They may appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tax is not a black and white area.

They could indeed.  The law looks clear enough though.  Has there been an error in law by the FTT?  I suppose an appeal would be granted by tthe FTT judge anyway given its profile.

Point is that morally Linekar is the PR winner.

Not always about an error in law I don’t think. I think hmrc argued he was a ‘disguised employee’. And many subjective pieces of evidence are looked at in deciding that, before a decision is found on the balance of probabilities by the tribunal. Even contracts can be found to not be the ‘economic reality’ of a relationship.

And of course hmrc are always up against the fact rich companies (or in this case individuals) can afford KC’s to defend them. Hmrc can’t. It’s not black and white, as most tax cases aren’t.

The primary reason a judge would allow an appeal would be an error of law.  That would be presented "in the best light" by the person seeking an appeal and would have to persuade the judge who is being asked about their own decision.  But it's allowed as well I think if it has sort of broader appeal (no pun intended).  I have never been sure about the limitations.

HMRC used a KC and two juniors in the Linekar FTT case.  HMRC has deep enough pockets funded by the taxpayer for senior barristers at UTC and higher courts.  I meant to ask whether there is a reduced rate for Crown work as there are for juniors on the AG's panel.

It's a pisser when a smaller business has no funds for a barrister but the Crown can engage a brief and for a much reduced rate from the commercial rate.

Yeah I noticed hmrc used a KC after I typed that tbf.

But in my experience appeals are allowed for many more reasons than errors in law. In fact having worked in tax for years, I can’t remember many cases where appeals to upper tribunal haven’t been allowed (although I don’t work in income tax). Or it’s classed as “not applying the law correctly” based on the evidence available, of which much of it will be subjective anyway (so an appeal will be allowed).

But my point stands about loopholes, Amazon, Starbucks etc. It’s not something to be celebrated IMO.

[hudds]

HMRC are quite angry with the decision to be fair, and their staff are predominantly Labour voters.

They may appeal to the upper tribunal.

Tax is not a black and white area.

They could indeed.  The law looks clear enough though.  Has there been an error in law by the FTT?  I suppose an appeal would be granted by tthe FTT judge anyway given its profile.

Point is that morally Linekar is the PR winner.

Not always about an error in law I don’t think. I think hmrc argued he was a ‘disguised employee’. And many subjective pieces of evidence are looked at in deciding that, before a decision is found on the balance of probabilities by the tribunal. Even contracts can be found to not be the ‘economic reality’ of a relationship.

And of course hmrc are always up against the fact rich companies (or in this case individuals) can afford KC’s to defend them. Hmrc can’t. It’s not black and white, as most tax cases aren’t.

The primary reason a judge would allow an appeal would be an error of law.  That would be presented "in the best light" by the person seeking an appeal and would have to persuade the judge who is being asked about their own decision.  But it's allowed as well I think if it has sort of broader appeal (no pun intended).  I have never been sure about the limitations.

HMRC used a KC and two juniors in the Linekar FTT case.  HMRC has deep enough pockets funded by the taxpayer for senior barristers at UTC and higher courts.  I meant to ask whether there is a reduced rate for Crown work as there are for juniors on the AG's panel.

It's a pisser when a smaller business has no funds for a barrister but the Crown can engage a brief and for a much reduced rate from the commercial rate.

Yeah I noticed hmrc used a KC after I typed that tbf.

But in my experience appeals are allowed for many more reasons than errors in law. In fact having worked in tax for years, I can’t remember many cases where appeals to upper tribunal haven’t been allowed (although I don’t work in income tax).

But my point stands about loopholes, Amazon, Starbucks etc. It’s not something to be celebrated IMO.

I work in indirect tax and know of quite a few appeals refused.  The key reason for an appeal must be an error in law as my counsel have always advised and per the very basic info on the Gov appeal site: "You may be able to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) if you think there was a legal mistake with a decision made against you by certain lower tribunals and organisations."   Again, that could be argued on "boundaries of the law" or whatever.  I'm not qualified to say.

I'm not celebrating this decision but it looks like there was little benefit (tax advantage) in Lineker's business being an LLP as a contractor.  Maybe the limited liability?

I was never clear about the contractor rules - if you are not working for a single client then you are Ok (?)  Otherwise you are really no different to an employee.  As a hired gun myself, I have to be good in the open marketplace.  And (slips into FF mode) I AM the best in my field (one of the few in it, to be fair) and turn loads of work away every single day.

[backsidebaggie]

I think appeals are often accepted on the grounds of “not applying the law correctly”… I know this is semantics, but that brings in the subjective evidence, which I’ve found seems to result in many appeals being allowed.

On the government website it states:

[font="GDS Transport", arial, sans-serif]Ask for permission to appeal[/font]
[font="GDS Transport", arial, sans-serif]You may be able to appeal against the decision if the tribunal made a legal mistake, for example if it did not:[/font]

• apply the law correctly
  I guess that’s where the phrase “error in law” or “legal mistake” can be interpreted differently.
  
   But in any case, my main gripe is not whether there’s a legal mistake, it’s the fact loopholes are exactly that… legally correct. Thats why they’re loopholes. Morally reprehensible to me when large companies and the rich can find them. Hmrc will winsome and lose some, but it doesn’t make it right morally IMO.