Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 25-Abr-2024

Factor (10)

Factor (10)

89.

This was set out at FTT[134(10)]:

(10)

The profit Mr Barnes can make from the sound management of his business is through the efficient use of his time, and he did so with his engagements with Sky – writing the Sky online column on a Monday, doing the Rugby Club mid-week, fitting his broadcasting engagements round his newspaper commitments.

90.

Mr Stone argued as follows:

(1)

Opportunity to profit in this context is relevant only insofar as it is an aspect of financial risk. The FTT made no finding of any financial risk.

(2)

In PD, the FTT correctly found in relation to a pundit for Sky that the “potential to increase his income through the efficient use of time is neutral…As it is possible to be employed by one principal and self-employed for engagements with other principals, the ability to increase the amount of self-employed work does not cause the employed engagement to change its nature”: [68(9)].

(3)

Mr Barnes was paid a fixed amount per month by Sky under the hypothetical contract. He had no ability to increase his profit from an engagement with Sky by performing it more quickly, and he had no financial risk since his fee was fixed.

91.

We agree with Mr Stone that Factor (10) was not, as matter of principle, a pointer away from employment under the hypothetical contract. The opportunity for Mr Barnes to profit from efficient use of time in his overall business sheds no light on the question at the Third RMC Stage, which is whether in all the circumstances the hypothetical contract would have been one of employment.