Another defeat for HMRC in TV presenter IR35 row
Several high profile TV presenters have been under the spotlight in respect of whether IR35 applies to their working arrangements. The latest of these resulted in a loss for HMRC. What’s the full story?

Challenging HMRC’s assertions that IR35 applies to working arrangements has been something of a mixed bag for TV presenters. Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams both won their cases; but others, including Eamonn Holmes, have lost theirs. The latest case to be heard was that of Adrian Chiles (C), most recognisable as a sports presenter.
The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) disagreed with HMRC’s assertions that C was an employee (in all but name) of both the BBC and ITV. The Tribunal held that C was in business on his own account via his limited company, based on the number of clients he worked for. He had also embarked on a number of unsuccessful commercial ventures, indicating that he bore considerable financial risk. The FTT also downplayed the importance of a lack of substitution clause, i.e. that C did not have the right to provide a substitute if he were unable to undertake his duties.
The FTT took a “big picture” approach and decided that on the face of things the arrangements with both the BBC and ITV were part of C's business, and not part of an arrangement to which IR35 would apply. Of course, FTT decisions are not binding, and it is likely that HMRC will appeal. However, it does show that negative media coverage of these high-profile cases should not be taken at face value.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?