UT/2020/000377 - [2024] UKUT 00099 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2020/000377 - [2024] UKUT 00099 (TCC)

Fecha: 15-Dic-2023

Background

Background

5.

We will need to approach the findings of fact as made by the FTT in more detail later in this decision. However, to set the scene, we will first describe the factual backdrop to this dispute, none of which, we understand, is in dispute.

6.

RALC is the personal service company of Mr Richard Alcock, an IT consultant. At all material times, Mr Alcock was the sole director of, and the sole shareholder in, RALC.

7.

During the relevant tax years, RALC provided the services of Mr Alcock for fixed periods of time under three sets of contractual arrangements that are relevant to this appeal. In each case, there were four parties to the chain of contracts: Mr Alcock, RALC, an agency, and the “end client”. The end client in the case of two of the sets of contractual arrangements was Accenture (UK) Limited (“Accenture”), a management consultancy and professional services firm. The end client in the other case was the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”). The agency for the engagements with Accenture was Networkers Recruitment Services Limited (“Networkers”) and the agency for the engagement with DWP was Capita Resourcing Limited (“Capita”).

8.

In all cases, the contractual arrangements involved: an agreement between RALC and the agency, to which the parties, and the FTT in the Decision, referred as the “lower level contract” or “LLC”; and a further agreement between the agency and the end client, to which the parties and the FTT in the Decision, referred as the “upper level contract” or “ULC”. We have adopted the same terminology in this decision notice. There must also have been a further contract, between RALC and Mr Alcock, though the FTT made no findings as to the terms of that contract, no doubt because it proceeded on the basis that RALC could safely be viewed as an alter ego of Mr Alcock. No-one has suggested to us that the terms of any contract between Mr Alcock and RALC are significant.

9.

In summary, the contractual arrangements under which Mr Alcock’s services were provided were as follows:

(1)

between 8 November 2010 and 20 July 2012 and between 22 October 2012 and 28 April 2013, a LLC between RALC and Networkers and a ULC between Networkers and Accenture in relation to work on project undertaken by Accenture for DWP (referred to in the Decision as the “first contract”);

(2)

between 4 March 2013 and 7 December 2013, a LLC between RALC and Capita and a ULC between Capita and DWP in relation to work on a Universal Credit project for DWP (referred to in the Decision as the “second contract”);

(3)

between 16 December 2013 and 14 February 2015, a LLC between RALC and Networkers and a ULC between Networkers and Accenture in relation to work on project undertaken by Accenture for Police Scotland (referred to in the Decision as the “third contract”).