Background
Background
The parties agree that a helpful structure for a tribunal to adopt on an appeal concerning the application of the intermediaries legislation is to follow the three-stage process set out by the Court of Appeal in HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 501 (“Atholl House CA”) at [7]). That process involves:
Stage 1: Find the terms of the actual contractual arrangements and relevant circumstances within which the individual worked.
Stage 2: Ascertain the terms of the hypothetical contract postulated by section 49(1)(c)(i) ITEPA and the counterpart legislation as applicable for the purposes of NICs; and
Stage 3: Consider whether the hypothetical contract would be a contract of employment.
The parties agree that the FTT directed itself appropriately on the approach that it should take at FTT [6] and FTT [41] (see [17] above). The parties also agree that the FTT directed itself correctly to the guidance in the judgment of Park J in Usetech regarding the construction of the hypothetical contract between the individual and the end client at Stage 2 in the process (FTT [43]) and to the application of the common law test for employment status as set out by MacKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete (i.e. the RMC test) for the purpose of determining whether that hypothetical contract is an employment contract at Stage 3 in the process (FTT [44]). At this point however, the parties diverge.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- The relevant legislation
- The FTT Decision
- The Grounds of Appeal
- Ground 1
- Background
- The parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- Case law guidance on the correct approach
- The FTT’s approach in this case
- Conclusions
- Ground 2
- Background
- The parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- Relevant case law
- The FTT’s approach to mutuality of obligation
- Conclusions
![UT/2020/000377 - [2024] UKUT 00099 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)