Dragonfly Consulting Ltd v R & C Commissioners
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2007 |
| Date | 11 December 2007 |
| Court | Special Commissioners (UK) |
special commissioners decision
Charles Hellier
Dave Smith and Nicola Smith of Accountax Consulting Ltd, Chartered Tax Advisers, for the Appellant
Mike Faulkner of HMRC Appeals Unit for the Respondents
Income tax - Worker supplied through intermediaries - "IR 35" - Finance Act 2000 schedule 12FA 2000, Sch. 12 - Whether circumstances were such that had the services been provided under a contract directly with the worker the worker would have been an employee - Held: yesNational Insurance - Worker supplied through intermediaries - "IR 35" - SI 2000/727 regulation 6Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/727), reg. 6 - Whether circumstances were such that had the arrangements taken the form of a direct contract with the worker the worker would have been an employee - Held: yes
A special commissioner decided that, on the facts, a contractor who provided his services through an intermediary company to a third party client would have been regarded as an employee if he had been engaged directly by the client. Accordingly, under the "IR35" legislation the intermediary was liable to pay National Insurance contributions (NICs) and income tax under PAYE in respect of the payments made to the contractor.
The taxpayer company's sole director (B) was an IT system tester. B owned 50 per cent of the shares in the taxpayer. The taxpayer appealed against decisions and determinations made in respect of PAYE and NICs by the Revenue under the IR35 provisions totalling £99,000. In the relevant period the taxpayer, via an agency (DPP), had provided B's services to a client, AA. The work was testing aspects of three IT projects then being undertaken by AA. The Revenue took the view that the circumstances were such that, if the services had been provided under a contract directly between B and AA, B would have been regarded for income tax purposes as an employee of AA.
In outline, the IR35 legislation, contained in Finance Act 2000 schedule 12FA 2000, Sch. 12 for direct tax and the SI 2000/727 regulation 6Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/727), reg. 6 for NICs, provided that if the circumstances were such that, had B performed his services under a contract directly between him and AA, that contract would have been one of employment, then the taxpayer would be liable for NICs and PAYE calculated broadly on the basis that the payments it received were emoluments it paid to B. The taxpayer contended that under such a contract B would not have been an employee.
Whether, if the arrangements had taken the form of a contract between B and AA, B would have been regarded as an employee of AA.
The special commissioner (Charles Hellier) (dismissing the appeal) said that a contract of service existed if three conditions were fulfilled: (1) the servant agreed, that in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he would provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master; (2) he agreed, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he would be subject to the other's control in a sufficient degree to make that other master; (3) the other provisions of the contract were consistent with its being a contract of service (Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National InsuranceELR[1967] 2 QB 497 and Montgomery v Johnson Underwood LtdUNK [2001] EWCA Civ 318 applied). Having considered mutuality and control, the court would consider whether the person performing the services was a person in business on his own account (Market Investigations Ltd v Minister for Social SecurityELR[1969] 2 QB 173 applied).
In relation to mutuality, for there to be an employment contract there had to be a contract. That required some mutual obligations. That contract could not be an employment contract unless the "employee" was obliged to provide his labour. An obligation on the employer to provide work or in the absence of available work to pay was not a precondition for the contract being one of employment, but its presence in some form was a touchstone or a feature one would expect to find in an employment contract and where absence would call into question the existence of such a relationship (Nethermere (St Neots) v TavernaUNK [1984] IRLR 240, Carmichael v National Power plcUNK [1999] 4 All ER 897, Propertycare Ltd v Gower [2003] UKEAT/0547/03, Usetech Ltd v Young (HMIT)TAX[2005] BTC 48 and Cornwall County Council v PraterUNK [2006] EWCA Civ 102 considered).
The first two Ready Mixed Concrete preconditions were satisfied: (1) the contracts would have been for the personal service of B in return for remuneration. The limited possibility of substitution would not have prevented them being for contracts for his services; (2) the right of AA to direct through the operation of the team and the guidance of the team manager was enough, in the case of a skilled professional man, to be able to say that there was sufficient control. The notional contract would contain provisions requiring B to be subject to the guidance of his team and team manager. That was a sufficient right of control.
The mutuality condition was satisfied by an obligation to work in return for an obligation to remunerate. That condition was satisfied by the notional contracts. A requirement to make work available (or to pay when it was not) was a significant pointer towards employment. If the notional contract would have obliged AA to pay only for work done, that would point away from a contract of employment. However, that was counterbalanced by the fact that it was known that work would be available during the period of the contract.
The other factors pointed only weakly away from employment. There was nothing which pointed strongly to the conclusion that B would have been in business on his own account; by contrast, looking at the overall picture, B was someone who worked fairly regular hours during each engagement, who worked on parts of a project which were allocated to him as part of AA's teams, who was integrated into AA's business, and who had a role similar to that of a professional employee. B did not get paid for, or go to work to provide, a specific product; instead, he provided his services to AA to be used by them in testing the parts of a project which from time to time were allocated to him. He was engaged in relation to the work to be done on a specific project but not to deliver anything other than his services in providing testing in relation to that project. He would have been an employee had he been directly engaged by AA.
1. Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd appeals against the following decision and determinations made by the Respondents under what are commonly known as the IR 35 provisions:
-
(i) a decision issued on 30 April 2004 for the period 6 April 2000 to 5 April 2003 in respect of National Insurance Contributions; and
-
(ii) determinations issued on 18 June 2004 in respect of PAYE for the same period.
By these determinations and this decision the Respondents seek some £99,000 from the Appellant.
2. In the relevant period Mr Jon Bessell who was the director of, and owner of 50 per cent of the shares in, the Appellant had, via arrangements between (1) him and the Appellant, (2) the Appellant and an agency, DPP International Ltd (DPP), and (3) between DPP and the AA, provided his services to the AA.1
3. In outline, the IR 35 legislation, which I shall describe later, provides that if the circumstances are such that, had Mr Bessell performed his services under a contract directly between him and the AA, that contract would have been one of employment, then the Appellant will be liable for NI contributions and PAYE calculated broadly on the basis that the payments it received were emoluments it paid to Mr Bessell. The Appellant contends that under such a contract Mr Bessell would not have been an employee.
4. The argument before me related to the nature of the hypothetical contract, and whether or not Mr Bessell would have been an employee in relation to it, and not to the amounts involved. This is therefore a preliminary decision.
5. In the remainder of this decision I shall first discuss the evidence and set out my findings of fact, then address the relevant law, and then reach my conclusions on the appeal.
6. There was a joint bundle of documents. I heard oral evidence from Mr Bessell; from Jane Tooze, who had, through her own service company provided services to the AA in the relevant period and who had been responsible for part of the project on which Mr Bessell worked in the period October 2002 to April 2003; from Alan Palmer who was an employee of the AA in the relevant period acting as an IS Test Manager, and responsible for part of the projects on which Mr Bessell worked between February and July 2000, and between May 2002 and September 2002; and from Alan Kersley who in the relevant period was Head of Change Delivery at the AA. All of them provided witness statements. In the days before the hearing the Appellants produced a letter from Christine White who described herself as The AA Commerce Programme Manager. Ms White did not give oral evidence.
7. I find the following facts:
-
(i) Mr Bessell is a highly skilled IT system tester. His principal expertise is designing and implementing tests on IT systems software which will give the user of the software the required level of confidence that the software will work as intended or required. This work involves determining the expectations of the users translating those expectations into requirements of the system and testing the system (for example by creating a large number of test usings of the system) to assess whether it meets those requirements. Mr Bessell does this job well and his skills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dragonfly Consulting Ltd v R & C Commissioners
...Hellier, released on 11 December 2007 (“the Decision”) after a two day hearing in September of that year. The Decision is reported at [2008] STC (SCD) 430. The appeal lies only on questions of law: see section 56A(1) and (4) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. 2 The Special Commissioner dism......
-
Primary Path Ltd
...under which the worker's services were made available to the client (see the case of Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v R & C Commrs SCD(2007) Sp C 655 at paragraphs 32 to 34 and that case on appeal to the High Court, Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v R & C Commrs TAX[2008] BTC 639 at paragraphs 14 to 1......
-
Alternative Book Company Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs
...referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of regulation 6(1). 20. The special commissioner in Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v R & C CommrsSCD(2007) Sp C 655 at paragraph 32 considered that the potential difference between the 2000 Act and the 2000 Regulations might have an impact on the factual matrix f......
-
Littlewood v HM Revenue and Customs
...to provide work and pay the agreed rate. Mr Seaman also relied on a further IR 35 decision, Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v R & C CommrsSCD(2007) Sp C 655 at paragraphs 50, 57 and 58. He described this as the crux of HMRC's position on mutuality. 45. The factor of termination without notice had......
-
Tax Update: A Round-Up of Recent Tax Issues - Monday 7 February 2011
...the existence of such a relationship: per Special Commissioner Hellier at first instance in Dragonfly Consultancy Limited v. HMRC [2008] STC (SCD) 430 at [59]. A termination notice clause implies an obligation on the employer to provide work until the right to terminate is exercised: per Ha......