Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2023/000068 - [2024] UKUT 00262 (TCC)

Fecha: 25-Abr-2024

Arguments of the parties

Arguments of the parties

51.

Essentially, HMRC’s objection is that the FTT erred in the application of the Third RMC Stage because the twelve factors which it identified were not, individually or cumulatively, indicators against employment status, and because it failed to weigh in the balance other terms of the hypothetical contract which were strong indictors of employment status.

52.

Mr Collins pointed out that in Northern Light Solutions Ltd v HMRC [2021] UKUT 0134 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal cautioned as follows, at [85]:

…in applying the Ready Mixed Concrete tests the FTT is called upon to reach a broad evaluative conclusion based on all the evidence before it. As the authorities have repeatedly indicated, this Tribunal should be reluctant to interfere with the evaluative judgment of the FTT unless it is clear that the FTT has misdirected itself as to the law, misapplied the law to the facts or has reached a conclusion which is not open to it on the facts found (in accordance with the principles set out in Edwards v Bairstow).

53.

Mr Collins argued that an assertion by HMRC that a factor taken into account by the FTT was “neutral” was a complaint about weight, which was entirely a matter for the FTT, and not a point of law which gives a right of appeal. He said that the FTT’s twelve factors did indicate that Mr Barnes would not have been employed under the hypothetical contract, and the factors which HMRC claimed the FTT had failed to take into account were taken into account. The FTT’s self-direction as to the law showed that the FTT was fully aware of the factors to take into account at the Third RMC Stage. Even if the FTT did err, said Mr Collins, none of the errors was material to its decision.