Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

Employee or Contractor? Broadcast Journalist Receives £400,000 Tax Bill

Establishing a company to act as an intermediary between yourself and the clients to whom you provide your services can have substantial tax advantages. As a case involving a broadcast journalist showed, however, such arrangements are pointless if the underlying relationship is, in substance, one of employment.

Via her personal service company, the journalist entered into a seven-year contract with a national broadcaster. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) took the view that Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions should have been deducted from her income at source. That was on the basis that, had the company been taken out of the equation so that she provided her services directly to the broadcaster, there would have been a contract of employment.

After HMRC raised demands against the company totalling £419,151, the journalist pointed out that, during the course of the contract, she had considerable editorial independence. She had set up the company on the broadcaster's suggestion and was not afforded the range of benefits enjoyed by its employed personnel. Her challenge to the demands was, however, rejected by the First-tier Tribunal.

In dismissing her appeal against that outcome, the Upper Tribunal found that she had, in effect, held a full-time job with the broadcaster under a fixed-term contract. The broadcaster had the right not only to require her to work on particular days, but to direct what work she did. It could also edit her material as it saw fit and had ultimate control over the way she provided her services. The relationship with the broadcaster was, therefore, that of an employee.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.